조선후기 欽恤의 두 가지 모색 -윤기와 정약용의 贖錢論을 중심으로- (Two approaches to the notion of Heum’hyul(欽恤) in Joseon’s later days : Examination of Yun Gi and Jeong Yak-yong’s views on the Fine/Redemption practice(贖錢論))

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국실학학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국실학연구 / 35호 / 249 ~ 285페이지
· 저자명 : 김호

초록

조선후기에 중앙과 지방을 막론하고 재정 보충을 위한 贖錢이 남발되었다.
중죄인들이 속전으로 처벌을 면하자 유전무죄의 불만과 더불어 사법 정의가 손상되는 더 큰 문제가 발생했다. 본고에서 필자는 속전제 개선을 둘러싼 윤기와정약용의 서로 다른 견해를 검토했다. 두 사람은 欽恤을 ‘단순한 용서’가 아닌‘정확한 법적용’이라고 주장했던 주희의 흠휼론에 기초하면서도 서로 다른 해법을 내놓았다. 먼저 윤기는 주자학파(朱熹에서 蔡沉으로 이어지는)의 尙書 해석에 따라 死罪를 돈으로 대신하는 收贖제도의 폐지를 주장했다. 그는 속전제자체가 태생적으로 나쁜 제도였다고 주장했다. 이에 반해 정약용은 성호 이익의주장을 따라 속전제를 성인의 仁政으로 파악했다. 성인께서 신체형[肉刑]을 좋아하지 않아 관용했던 연장선에서, 불가피하게 償命할 수 없는 경우 속전을 병행하였다는 주장이었다.
이상 두 사람의 견해 차이는 조선의 법집행[擬律]에서 요구되었던 情․理․法의 재량과 연관되어 있다. 법 집행 과정의 ‘재량’은 1) 사건의 정황과 인륜[情․ 理]을 고려하여 법을 구부릴 수도 반대로 2) 법의 원칙을 강조하여 情理를 후퇴시킬 수도 있었다. 법은 피해자의 원통함을 (국가가) 되갚아주는 의미가 있었으므로 당시대의 도덕감정을 반영하지 않을 수 없었다. 따라서 사법정의는 도덕감정을 추스르고 교화를 강조하는 방향으로 전개될 수도, 이와 달리 법률의 취지에 매우 충실하게 구현될 수도 있었다. 법의 원칙과 정황 및 도덕 감정 사이의時中이 필수적이었다. ‘엄격한 법집행’이라는 주희의 주장을, 윤기는 도덕감정[情理]을 중시한 사법정의로 파악했다. 윤기는 피해자의 원통함을 배려하여 가해자를 엄벌하는 재량이 필요하다고 보았다. 반면에 다산은 情理도 중시했지만法[의 원칙]을 더 강조했다. 다산은 조선후기에 法을 굽혀서라도 情理를 펼치고이를 교화의 토대로 삼았던 법 관행을 비판했다. 다산에게 사법정의는 입법취지를 정확하게 이해한 후 가능한 재량을 억제-도덕감정의 축소-하고 법에 卽할 때가능했다. 다산이 보기에 피해자와 당시대의 도덕감정을 지나치게 강조하다가가해자를 엄벌하거나, 반대로 가해자의 정황을 너무 고려하다가 율문의 취지에반하는 문제들이 발생하고 있었다.
다산이나 윤기 모두 법의 원칙과 엄격한 처벌을 강조했다. 그럼에도 다산은윤기와 같이 애초에 사죄는 속전할 수 없으므로 신체형을 가해야 한다고 생각하지 않았다. 다산은 윤기의 주장이야말로 仁政에서 멀어질 뿐 아니라 경전의 참뜻을 이해하지 못한 俗見이라고 비판했다. 법은 정의와 교화의 수단이었지만 法 에 앞선 지나친 감정 개입은 사법정의의 구현을 요원하게 할 뿐이었다. 다산은속전형의 의미를 철저하게 고증함으로써, 입법취지를 오해한 채 감정에 치우친다시 말해 법의 도덕화 현상을 예방하고자 했다. 조선후기에 야기되었던 도덕감정의 과잉이야말로 다산이 가장 우려했던 바였다.

영어초록

In the later days of the Joseon period, in both the capital and local regions, authorities levied fines(贖錢) and collected them from offenders -instead of exacting punishments- in order to financially replenish themselves. As heavy offenders continued to redeem themselves with money, other people who could not afford to pay such fines naturally became more and more frustrated, while legal justice was continuously compromised everyday.
Examined in this article are two different opinions on how to fix the “redemption by fines” penalty system. Those two ideas can be spotted from the remarks of Yun Gi and Jeong Yak-yong respectively. Both figures based their opinions upon Zhuxi(朱熹)’s “Heum’hyul(欽恤, compassion and assistance)” definition, understanding that such notion was not supporting ‘simple forgiveness’ and actually suggested ‘accurate applications of the law.’ Yet in terms of realizing such notion in real life situations, Yun and Jeong differed very much.
Yun Gi took notice of the Zhuxi School(from Zhuxi to Cai Shen/蔡沉) interpretation of the concept as dictated in Sangseo(尙書), and argued that the current practice of levying fines upon a death penalty offender (who would be released after paying such fine) should be abolished. He explicitly stated that the fine-levying practice itself should never have been conceived in the first place. On the other hand, Jeong Yak-yong adhered to the arguments of Seong’ho Yi Ik, and considered the very practice (fine-levying) as part of the Holy figures’ tradition of ‘benevolent governance(仁政).’ Jeong argued that theHoly figures in the past never endorsed the idea of punishing a human body directly, and they recognized the necessity to allow people to pay fines for their crimes, in case they were not able to endure harsh punishments on their own.
Difference in these two individuals’ opinions seems to have been derived from their respective stances toward certain concepts of Joseon law enforcement, such as circumstance(情), morals(理), law(法), and not to mention the ‘discretion’ some may employ in the process of law enforcement. Such discretion could result in either 1) adequate ruling which considered the circumstances of the case and acknowledged primary needs of human beings, or 2) strict ruling that was indifferent to personal needs or sentiments. Law was designed to (or at least conceived in the first place to) resolve -on behalf of the government- the frustration of the victims in the offenders’ stead, so in a sense was destined to reflect (or affected by) the morality or sentiments of the time. In that regard, legal justice could manifest itself in both ways, either serving as a moral system emphasizing enlightenment and reformation, or maintaining itself purely as a technical system with strict interpretation of legal provisions.
So, a middle ground(“時中”) was needed. Although Zhuxi stated that ‘law enforcement should be strict,’ Yun Gi interpreted it as a notion that legal justice should also not be without sentimentality prioritizing morality. In order to honor the victims’ frustration, he argued that offenders should be strictly punished. On the other hand, Dasan recognized the importance of legal principles. He was very critical of the conventional practice in the Joseon dynasty’s later days which placed empathy above the law and promoted reformation upon such premise. To him, legal justice was only possible when the enforcers correctly understood the spirit of the law and minimized the level of discretion they may feel inclined to employ. In Dasan’s eyes, placing too much emphasis upon contemporary moral sentiments was sometimes causing offenders to be punished too harshly, while too much consideration for the offenders’ situation was resulting in rulings that did not reflect the true spirit of the law.
Dasan and Yun Gi all emphasized adequate punishments and true realization of legal principles. Yet Dasan, unlike Yun Gi, did not believe that death penalty could never be lifted just because one was willing to pay financially, and he also did not believe that a crime which would require such penalty should be resolved only by punishing the flesh. Dasan viewed Yun Gi’s argument as a typical example of actually ‘steering away’ from the cause of maintaining benevolent governance, and as an ‘uncivilized’ opinion ‘oblivious’ to the true spirit dictated in classical texts. To Dasan, true legal ruling(法治) would only be possible when one would stick to the contents of legal provisions. Law was a tool for ensuring justice and enlightening, so bypassing law and appealing to emotions would make law enforcement only the more difficult. In other words, Dasan’s goal was to prevent law from being understood more as morality, and prevent people from misunderstanding the law while being swayed by emotions. Excessive moral sentiments in Joseon’s later days was what worried Dasan the most.

참고자료

· 없음