일본의 안중근연구에 대한 비판적 검토 －제3의 저격설을 중심으로－ (A Critical Review on the Study of Ahn Jung-geun by Japanese Scholars –Laying Stress on the Theory on a Third Sniper－)

서지정보

· 발행기관 : 한국민족운동사학회
· 수록지 정보 : 한국민족운동사연구 / 71호 / 49 ~ 86페이지
· 저자명 : 신운용

초록

필자는 본고의 목적을 일본 연구자들이 “안중근의거는 없었다”는 이른바 제3의 저격설을 내세워 안중근의거와 그에 대한 폄하를 넘어서 한국사를 멸시하는 일본의 식민사관에 학문적으로 대응하려는 데 두었다. 그 결과 다음과 같은 결론에 도달하였다.
제3의 저격설의 기원은 무로다로 거슬러 올라간다. 무로다는 1909년에 이어 1938년에 제3의 저격설을 제기하였다. 이는 1960년대에 들어와 본격화 되었다. 그 선봉에 선 일본 학자는 히라카와였다. 이후 잠잠하다가 이는 2000년에 들어와 본격적으로 부상하였다. 특히 논픽션 작가 카미가이토 켄이치(上垣外憲一)(2000)와 오오노 카오루(大野芳)(2003)가 이토의 사망이 대외강경파의 작품이라고 강조한 음모설을 내세워 무로다설을 다시 들고 나왔다. 특히 2004년 일제의 한국병탄 연구로 명성이 있는 운노 후쿠쥬(海野福壽)가 이들의 주장을 지지하면서 제3의 저격설은 새로운 차원으로 넘어갔다. 안중근순국 100주년인 2010년에도 일본에서 제3의 저격설이 확산되고 있는 실정이다.
그러나 프랑스 기마총을 가진 3명의 한인이 이토를 저격하였다는 제3의 저격설은 무로다가 의거장면을 보지 못했다는 점, 현장에 있었던 다수의 일본인과 러시아인이 의거를 증언하고 있는 점, 조사를 받은 러시아인과 일본인 중에 오직 무로다만 총성의 진원지를 하얼빈 역 2층이라고 강조하고 있다는 점, 1909년 11월 20일의 진술과 달리, 1938년에 간행된 『室田義文翁談』에 저격 장소가 ‘역 2층’으로, 사용된 무기가 프랑스 기마총으로 바뀐 점, 무로다의 탄도의 방향 설명과 무로다의 「이토 피탄 추정 인체도」가 다른 점, 일제의 모든 공식기록이 제3의 저격론을 부정하고 있다는 점, 만주신보가 의거장면이 찍힌 활동사진 상영 사실을 기록한 점 등에서 어떤 목적을 가지고 의도적으로 조작된 것이 분명하다. 이처럼 제3의 저격설을 주장하는 일본인들은 사료의 자의적 해석, 사료비판의 의도적 외면, 무로다설에 대한 비판적 접근의 결여 등으로 역사가 아닌 소설을 쓰고 말았다.
결론적으로 한국 멸시관과 학문적 소양의 부족이 낳은 제3의 저격설은 과거사를 미화하려는 일본의 현실과 역사연구의 경향성 속에서 가공되어 확대 재생산된 허구라고 할 수 있다.

영어초록

This paper is a scholarly counterargument to Japanese view on Ahn Jung-geun, which is the colonial view of history, that denounces his patriotic deed and Korean history. By analyzing the so-called ‘Theory on a third-sniper’, along with its origin, foundations, phase of proliferation and falsehood, the writer arrives at the following conclusion.
The root of the theory on a third sniper is Muroda. In November, 1909, he rose the possibility of Ito’s shooter being a third person other than Ahn Jung-geun. However, several Russian and Japanese figures testified that they witnessed Ahn’s assassination at the scene. Particularly, Moritajiro, the secretary of the Minister of the Imperial Household, repudiated Muroda’s hypothesis. Newspaper articles and the screening of Ahn’s patriotic deed then also revealed the fictitiousness of the theory. Through this, not only the investigators in charge but the justice department of Japan concluded that a third shooter theory has no relevance to Ahn Jung-geun’s patriotic deed.
In 1939, 29 years after the incident, Muroda again posed a question through his paper. His publication contained different information from his statement in November, 1909 regarding the location of the shooting, the number of people involved and the wounds of Ito. In specific, Muroda reinforced his previous assertion in 1909 by adding false information that Ito wasn’t shot by Ahn’s gun, but by French dragoon’s gun, which was fired three times, downward from the second floor of a nearby building. Muroda based his assertion on a word from Kokovtsov that there was a Korean man armed with a horseback rifle loitering around a nearby station.
The hypothesis of a third sniper built a theoretical foundation in 1960 by Hirakawa, although it didn’t draw much attention. In 1971, the Federation of Japanese Newspaper introduced Muroda’s hypothesis.
It was in 2000 when full-scale research on the theory started to took off. In 2000, nine years before the centennial anniversary of Ito’s death, Kamigaito set forth Muroda’s theory, adding a conspiracy theory that a strong foreign policy party of Japan then brought about Ito’s death. Subsequently, in 2003, Unno especially brought the theory into relief. The process was led by writers who wrote articles to entertain readers rather than by professional historians. In 2004, however, Unno opened up new dimention of a third sniper theory, who was a renowned researcher of the Japan’ annexation of Korea. In 2010, the centennial anniversary of Ahn Jung－geun’s passing, Wakasa Kazumoto presented a paper <The Assassination of Ito Hirobumi: It was not Ahn Jung-geun who murdered Ito>, which proliferated the theory.
Nevertheless, it is highly assumed that the theory is fabricated on purpose that three Koreans armed with French dragoon’s rifles shot Ito to death. A number of facts proves this: 1. Muroda never saw the scene of assassination, 2. It was only Muroda, among several Russians and Japanese under investigation, who claimed that he heard the gunfire from the second floor of the Harbin station, 3. The historical records of Kokovtsov made no reference to Muroda’s claim, 4. His publication in 1938 is different from his previous statement, inserting the information that the location of the shooting was ‘the second floor of the station’, that the arms used were French dragoon’s rifles and that Kokovtsov commented ‘the culprit is a Korean called Ahn Jung-geun,’ 5. Muroda’s explanation of trajectory is different from his <Estimated Drawing of Ito’s Shot Body>, 6. All of the official Japanese document disavows the possibility of a third sniper.
The Japanese scholars who argue for the theory brought about serious logical errors for they interpreted historical records arbitrarily, turned away on purpose from records that could correct Muroda’s hypothesis and lacked critical approach to the authenticity of the theory. Furthermore, they devoted themselves not to historical publications but to fictitious articles, which falsely characterized Ito as ‘a pacifist’.
To conclude, a third sniper theory, engendered by the lack of academic professionalism and the Japan’s atmosphere despising Korea, has snowballed with a deep relation to the Japan’s tendency of historical study and the contemporary history of Japan that glamorize its past.

참고자료

· 없음