당률과 명률의 형벌체계와 형벌론

• Published in: 법사학연구 no. 59; pp. 167 - 199
• Main Author: 한상권(Sang-Kwon Han)
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: Korean
• Published: 한국법사학회 01.04.2019
• Subjects: 법학; The Five Punishments(五刑); 태·장·도·유·사·오형; The Great Ming Code(大明律); 명례율(名列律); 죄형법정주의; System of Six laws(六典體制); 당률소의(唐律疏議); General provisions(總則); 대명률(大明律); The Dang Code with Commentaries(唐律疏議); 유추해석금지; Law on Punishments and General Principles(名列律); Grundsatz nulla poena sine lege(罪刑法定主義)
• DOI: 10.31778/lawhis..59.201904.167
• ISSN: 1226-2773

중국은 형법이 옛날부터 그 발전정도가 현저하였다. 이를 잘 보여주는 법전이 7세기 중엽에 편찬된 『唐律疏議』와 14세기 후반에 편찬된 『大明律』이다. 중국의 법률수준을 대표하는 양대 법전은 체제 면에서 總則과 分則으로 구성되어 있으며, 總則에 해당하는 名例律을 篇首에 배치하였다는 공통점을 지니고 있다. 반면 당률이 北朝 율학의 전통을 계승해 12篇目으로 구성되어 있으나, 명률은 『元典章』의 영향을 받아 吏·戶·禮·兵·刑·工의 六典體制를 갖추고 있다는 차이점이 있다. 隋의 開皇律을 계승한 당률과 당률을 기반으로 편찬한 명률의 형벌체계는 동일한 五刑이지만 내용면에서 차이점이 있다. 당률과는 달리 명률은 (1)자유형인 徒刑과 流刑에 신체형인 杖刑을 倂科하였으며, (2)오형에 없는 肉刑인 刺字를 두었으며, (3)오형에 없는 추방형인 遷徙와 安置를 徒罪와 流罪 사이에 두었으며, (4)오형에 없는 充軍을 流罪와 死罪 사이에 두었으며, (5)오형에 없는 陵遲處死를 死罪에 두었다. 당률과 명률은 형벌론도 차이점이 있다. 類推解釋의 허용범위를 둘러싸고, 당률은 量刑 조정을 위해 引律比附를 허용함으로써 定量的인 데 초점을 맞춘 반면, 명률은 법에 명시되어 있지 않은 범죄행위에 대해 성질이 비슷한 다른 조항을 끌어다 적용하는 것까지 포함하도록 적용범위를 넓힘으로써 定性的인 引律比附까지 허용하였다. 또한 율문이 효력을 발휘하는 시간적 적용 범위를 둘러싸고, 당률은 行爲時法主義를 취한 반면 명률은 裁判時法主義를 택하였다. 외국인 범죄에 대해서도, 당률은 屬人法主義에 따라 재판하도록 하는 반면 명률은 屬地法主義를 취하였다. China had developed the high standards of criminal laws from old times. The Dang Code with Commentaries(唐律疏議) complied in the mid-seventh century and the Great Ming Code(大明律) complied in the late fourteenth century clearly show such development of the criminal law system. These two codes representing a standard of Chinese legal system consist of the general provisions(總則) and particulars(各則), and both place the Law on Punishments and General Principles(名例律) as a general provision at the beginning of law. On the other hand, whereas the Dang Code with Commentaries consist of 12 parts in succession to the tradition of Northern Dynasty(北朝)’s criminal jurisprudence, the Great Ming Code has System of Six laws(六典體制) categorized as Li(吏)·Ho(戶)·Ye(禮)·Byung(兵)·Hyung(刑)·Gong(工) influenced by the Institutes of the Yuan Dynasty (元典章). Though a penal system of the Dang Dynasty’s Code and the Ming Dynasty’s Code both have the Five Punishments(五刑) in common, there are some differences in the detailed contents. The Ming Dynasty’s Code is differentiated from the Dang Dynasty’s Code as follows; (1) it imposes the punishments of beating with the heavy stick(杖刑) in addition to the penal servitude(徒刑) and the punishments of life exile(流刑) which are the type of punishment of restricting physical freedom; (2) there is a tattooing (刺字) as a punishment of harming a body not included in the Five Punishments; (3) it contains the banishment(遷徙) and settling in remote regions(安置) in between the penal servitude and the punishments of life exile; (4) it imposes penalty of serving in the military(充軍) which is in between the punishments of life exile(流刑) and the death penalty(死罪); and (5) it stipulates the sentence to death by slicing(陵遲處死) as a type of the death penalty(死罪) not included in the Five Punishments. Further, the Ming Dynasty’s Code and the Dang Dynasty’s Code are different in terms of the criminal jurisprudence. In regards to the limit of analogical interpretation of the law, while the Dang Dynasty’s Code allows to cite the Code and decide the case by analogy(引律比附) to adjust the sentence quantitatively, the Ming Dynasty’s Code further allows to qualitatively cite the Code and decide the case by analogy. With respect to the criteria of application of the codes, the Dang Dynasty’s Code applies the law based on the timing of committing a crime(行爲時法主義), but the Mingg Dynasty’s Code applies the law based on the timing of judging a matter(裁判時法主義). Also, regarding the foreign criminals, while the Dang Dynasty’s Code takes the principle of personal jurisdiction(屬人法主義), the Ming Dynasty’s Code is based on the territorial principle(屬地法主義). KCI Citation Count: 0