본문 바로가기
  • Home
Basic Search

Consideration on General State Discipline-related Crime and Punishment in the Former Half of 19c - Focused on Seoul -

Lee Sun Hee 1

1연세대학교

Accredited

ABSTRACT

In this study, one side of state administrative operation in the former half of 19c was intended to be observed focused on ‘larceny of government property’ and ‘assault/battery against petty officials class’ among crimes challenging state power. Such crimes that destroyed dignity of king, royal family and government office were occurred resolutely and prevalently during the former half of 19c. By observing what kind of punishment standard the government as a principal agent of administrative operation for such crime based on such crimes, what actually applied penal code and its subsequent punishment aspect were, detailed administrative operation practice could be figured out. First, ‘larceny of government property’ was divided into theft of royal tomb furnishings and shrine supplies and that of palace property and through its each case, crime reality was observed. As its result, it could be realized that goods were stolen at one place repeatedly and easy theft was possible as thieves were familiar with theft place and most of stolen goods such as brass basin, metal ring, firelock, metal arrowhead provided liquidity in case of its disposal. And against this crime, the government applied a crime of stealing big ancestral rite supplies by thieves (Dodae Sashin Eomool/盜大祀神御物), a crime of stealing warehouse materials by its keeper(Gamsooja Dochanggo Jeonryang/監守自盜倉庫錢糧), as defined in Daemyeongryul(大明律). At this time, If more than one person obtained one property as a criminal entity, byeongjang(竝贓) was applied. The clause has the nature of aggravated punishment for theft in an accomplice form, which I think the Joseon government also took advantage of it. In addition, confession was an important criterion and even if he did not confess, he executed if the crime was clear. More than anything else, the government emphasized importance of government property and dignity of government officials by comprehensively punishing not only stolen goods buyer but also government officials who neglected proper supervision or overlooked such crime. Next, in case of ‘assault/battery of petty officials’, range of such officials was limited to minor officials including Kyeongajeon and their assault, violence case was observed. However, such crime was not improved as king held its punishment priority and Gwansa somehow protected such officials. Eventually, the government announced relevant Soogyo by concluding that petty official class are not scared of strict laws (Bulwoi BubryeongJieom/不畏法令至嚴). Administrative operation for controlling those was strengthened through local exile after hard punishment, merciless flogging of criminals while dragging them around town, exile to remote island as a soldier, exile to remote island or region as a soldier without forgiveness. On the other hand, the government punished a person who assaulted government officials performing public duty for protecting public power or performed unauthorized private execution of punishment (Samoon Yonghyeong/私門用刑). This is a case of petty officials as assault victim and such crime was observed in a perspective of both ‘control and protection’ under the category of protecting state discipline.

Statistics

  • 361 Viewed
  • 1 Downloaded

Tools

Issue List

Citation status

* References for papers published after 2023 are currently being built.

Basic Search Advanced Search