CEO’s Essay-아이레보 하재홍 대표

하재홍,Ha, Jae-Hong 벤처기업협회 2006 벤처다이제스트 Vol.94 No.-

『뜻대로 하세요』에 나타난 선한 옛 법과 보통법 정신

하재홍 ( Jai-hong Ha ),박미경 ( Mikyung Park ) 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2020 법학논집 Vol.24 No.3

William Shakespeare’s play As You Like It has been interpreted as one of the romantic pastoral comedies and yet innovated the genre by reinventing the Forest of Arden into a realistic space with cold and hunger. It is in the Forest of Arden that both Oliver and Duke Frederick show a sudden change close to abrupt conversion, which indeed transforms the Forest of Arden into a space that holds such magical power as nature’s purification or religious conversion. However, from the perspective of pastoral comedy, this conversion is not only unrealistic but also improbable and unexpected. This paper attempts to account for almost magical effects inherent in the Forest of Arden and Duke Frederick’s conversion in terms of the rule of law. Before the 1900s the play was understood to have been inspired by Robin Hood ballads, which identified Robin Hood as hermit, outlawry, and resistant. In the tradition of the common law, nonetheless, at the heart of the Robin Hood legend is the good old law which allows for the rights of commons and liberties in the woods. William the Conqueror’s promise that the English people would live according to their good old law, which is none other than the law of Edward the Confessor, has been kept by all the monarchs, who have taken the same oath at the coronations since then. This was an important opportunity for the good old law to survive despite the Norman Conquest of 1066. This good old law includes the rights of commons, which is resonant with old custom that enables Duke Senior to live the pastoral life in the Forest of Arden, “Like old Robin Hood of England.” In Shakespeare’s day, moreover, common lawyers recognized that the English inherited the freedom that their ancestors enjoyed from time immemorial and was upheld in Magna Carta that King John agreed to in 1215. This notion of ancient constitution has long dominated the deep conscious of common lawyers, including John Fortescue, and since the 1550s it has been confirmed as a historical fact, especially by Edward Coke. This belief in the continuity of the common law became the common law mind, a strong source of lawful resistance to a monarch’s tyrannical and arbitrary power by transgressing the common law. Duke Frederick raised a large force to invade the Forest of Aden, but once in the forest, he relinquished all the secular power after chatting with an old religious man, who converted him into a peace-loving hermit. Since the Forest of Arden retained the good old law and Duke Senior lived like Robin Hood, and faith in permanence of the common law is not different from the religion of common law lawyers, the conversion of Duke Frederick is equivalent to conversion to the common law mind.

구두변론을 위한 작문기법

하재홍 ( Jaihong Ha ) 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2015 법학논집 Vol.20 No.1

Despite of the enforcement of Criminal Procedure Act (2007) which mandates oral pleadings in the courtroom, Korean lawyers have been suffered from poverty of theory and education in oral argument. Collecting of a good scratch of literatures or sayings does not automatically promise an effective communication skills or a telling conveyance of the meanings in oral argument. Good theory, imitation and practice are necessary to success, and in that sense classical theory of an oral argument for persuasion, that is rhetoric, provides many treasures such as effective skills and resources of an oral argument. Composition techniques are the primary key, and Classical Rhetoric have its’ own methods and various theories to train rhetorical composition skills. Although Alexander Bain formulated four modes of all discourses - description, narration, exposition, argument, Anglo-American lawyers still uses several extra modes in composing opening statement and closing argument which had been originated from Progymnasmata, classical primary composition exercise. This article introduced Progymnasmata for Korean lawyers to improve oral argumentation skills in criminal court. Concise outlines and examples of Narrative, Description, Exposition, Confirmation and Refutation are provided.

형평론 재고(再考)

하재홍 ( Jaihong Ha ) 이화여자대학교 법학연구소 2021 법학논집 Vol.25 No.4

Judges and lawyers of Korea have always recognised equity as vital element in legal world. Some laws declares to consider equity in their interpretation and application, and even without such legislation, equity is an important factor in finding facts or in the interpretation on contracts in trials. The Supreme Court of Korea also emphasizes that justice and equity are constitutional principles. But despite of this, equity has not received due attentions from lawyers. There is no doubt that the demand for equity in individual cases does not mean that unlimited discretion can or should be exercised by court. However, if there is no clear understanding of what exactly equity means, when and how it should be exercised by the court, then there are always huge dangers that the demand for equity may lead legal world to tyranny by jurists. This article aims to re-examine some issues discussed in previous studies on equity, while introducing what equity means in western legal tradition. The concept of equity first formalized by Aristotle in Nicomachean Ethics and Rhetoric and inherited by Cicero and Aquinas respectively was discussed in turns. And addition to this, the questions whether Augustine despised exercising equity in trial, and whether Aquinas always denied equity in legal interpretation were discussed.

헌법 제34조 제5항의 국가 책임과 롤즈의 시민 상호부조 원칙

하재홍 ( Ha Jaihong ) 영남대학교 법학연구소 2024 영남법학 Vol.- No.59

우리 헌법은 신체장애자 및 질병·노령 기타의 사유로 생활능력이 없는 국민에 대한 국가의 보호책임을 규정하고 있다(제34조 제5항). 하지만 우리 헌법 외에 부조를 필요로 하는 시민에 대한 보호책임을 국가에 직접 지운 헌법례는 찾기 어렵다. 요부조자에 대해서는 대개 시민사회의 존재를 전제로 시민사회가 1차적인 책임을 부담하는 것을 원칙으로 하며 국가의 개입은 사회보장제도나 보험제도의 조직과 지원에 그친다고 보는 것이 일반적이다. 사회국가 원리와 관련한 헌법해석에서 보충성 원리라 하는 것도 이를 의미하는 것이다. 이에 비추어보면 우리 헌법은 국가에 더한층 강한 책임을 지운 것임은 분명하다. 본 논문의 목적은 위 규정이 롤즈가 제기한 시민의 상호 부조원칙에 비추어 타당한지 검토하는 것이다. 롤즈는 정의론 을 비롯한 여러 저술에서 시민이 곤경에 처한 동료 시민을 돕는 것은 자연적 의무라고 이해했다. 롤즈의 정의론, 특히 재산소유 민주주의론에 비추어 보면, 위 헌법 규정은 시민이 자유와 평등한 관계 속에서 자기 존중감을 가지고 살아가게 하지 못하고 급부를 받는 열등한 존재인 것처럼 인식하게 할 위험이 있다. 또한 국가가 급부를 위해 사용하는 재원은 국민이 납부하는 세금인데 납세자인 시민에 대해서도 피해의식을 불러일으켜 결국 납세자인 시민의 자기 존중감도 해칠 위험이 있다. 과거 국민 대다수가 절대빈곤으로 고통받았던 시기도 있었지만 이제 우리는 경제성장을 통해 선진국 대열에 들어섰다고 널리 인정받는 시대에 살고 있다. 시민사회가 정치 및 경제, 사회와 문화 등 제반 영역에서 헌법 주체로서 든든하게 활약하고 있는 것이 현실인 만큼, 부조를 요하는 시민에 대해서도 시민사회가 본연의 책임을 다하는 방향으로, 국가는 보충성 원리에 충실하게 역할을 재정립하는 방향으로 헌법의 정상화가 이루어질 필요가 있다. Article 34(5) of the CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA provides that citizens who are incapable of earning a livelihood due to a physical disability, disease, old age, or other reasons shall be protected by the state under the conditions as prescribed by Act. However, it’s hard to find other constitutions putting the responsibility to protect such citizens directly upon the state. The general approach to the situation shows that it is for fellow citizens to take upon the responsibility and the state work for institutional construction, like public/national security or an insurance system. And that is the secondary principle in interpreting the constitutional provisions for the welfare state. In this regard, Article 34(5), by putting direct responsibility upon the state, ignores fellow citizens aside. But then, where are the fellow citizens, and what is the civil society for? This article aims to review Article 34(5) by the principles of justice of J. Rawls. In his A Theory of Justice and Justice as Fairness: A Restatement, Rawls argued that to help and support the citizen in need is the fellow citizen's natural duty. Especially in his theory of property-owning democracy, citizens’ mutual respect carries a central function to ensure each life is desirable and justifiable. This article asserts that Article 34(5) separates the feeling of self-respect of the citizen in need from the free and equal relation with fellow citizens and makes them perceived as inferior beings rather than living with others in free and equal relationships. And the financial resources used by the state for benefits are from taxpayers. It causes a sense of feeling of loss to citizens who are taxpayers and eventually harms citizens' self-esteem.

헌법과 자연법이론

河在洪 ( Jaihong Ha ) 법조협회 2023 법조 Vol.72 No.1

In the preamble of the Korean Constitution, there is a phrase, Breaking all social abuses and injustice. It’s widely accepted that the preamble of the constitution has normative nature, serves as a guide to constitutional interpretation, and presents principles to all official power and people. But this phrase was not recognized for its significance. This paper aims to explain this phrase by the natural law theory. There have been many affirmative changes in modern Korean history, and it is still ongoing. It is thought that the greatest force that has made this change lies in the desire for a righteous life. This aspiration is still expressed in various voices today, and in particular, it constantly demands the abolition of unfair social practices. We should not turn a blind eye to this voice. It is necessary to accept it as the practice of the constitutional spirit of Breaking all social abuses and injustice and to explain it with the social principles assumed by the Constitution. This paper argues that the constitution can be viewed through Aquinas's theory of natural law and the concept of the common good and that the above phrase can be explained by the principle in which prosperity and freedom are pursued in harmony with the order. The theory of natural law leaves many traces in the constitution but tends to be considered unrealistic in coping with constitutional issues. However, there are many voices in the U.S. that the constitutional reality and political issues, which have been marked by excessive individualism and the pursuit of collective interests, should be dealt with with the common good concept. Attempts are being made to restore the tradition of natural law theory and the concept of the common good. In particular, in recent years, common-good constitutionalism has been proposed as a constitutional interpretation theory. The full text of the Constitution is not political rhetoric. To look at reality from the perspective of the Constitution and keep the Constitution alive, it is necessary to find desirable principles that can guide daily life. Here, the theory of natural law can show considerable usefulness.

공리주의와 죄 없는 사람의 처벌 문제

하재홍(Ha, Jaihong) 숭실대학교 법학연구소 2024 법학논총 Vol.59 No.-

국가형벌권의 정당화 근거에 대해서는 응보주의, 공리주의 등 많은 이론이 경합해 왔다. 이 논쟁에서 공리주의는 잘못된 비판에 오래 시달려 왔는데, 바로 공리주의는 사회 전체의 효용을 극대화할 수 있다면 죄 없는 사람을 처벌하는 것도 용인한다는 것이다. 다행스럽게도 헤어(R.M. Hare)와 로젠(F. Rosen)의 노력으로 공리주의에 대한 이런 비판이 공리주의를 오독한 것이거나 심하게 왜곡한 것임이 밝혀졌다. 본 논문은 이들의 견해를 수용하고 이런 오독과 왜곡 과정을 살펴보았다. 먼저 맥클로스키(H. J. McCloskey)가 공리주의를 비판하기 위해 유명한 보안관 사례를 창안했다. 맥클로스키가 고안한 사례는 공리주의 이해를 위한 중요한 척도처럼 전승되었다. 그 결과 공리주의에 대한 이해는 자연스럽게 공리주의 비판으로 귀결될 수밖에 없었는데, 롤즈(J. Rawls) 등 많은 정치철학자가 공리주의를 죄 없는 사람을 처벌하는 것을 정당하게 취급하는 사상으로 이해한 것은 그 때문이다. 현대 형사법 영역에서도 이런 논의를 수용해 국가형벌권의 정당화 문제에서 공리주의를 근거가 취약한 이론으로 가르쳐 왔다. 국내에 소개된 레이시(N. Lacey)의 견해도 그런 경향을 대표한다. 본 논문에서는 보안관 사례의 창작과 전승을 설명하는 한편, 벤담(J. Bentham)이나 밀(J.S. Mill) 등 고전 공리주의자가 공리주의를 창안할 때 정의와 공리의 관계를 어떻게 이해했는지 설명했다. 벤담은 물론 밀에게 정의는 공리의 원천을 이루는 것이지 공리를 위해 포기될 수 있는 것이 아니었다. 벤담의 공리주의는 죄 없는 사람의 처벌을 정당화하지 않으며, 밀은 공리의 원리가 부정의한 조치를 정당화한다는 논지에 대해 분명하게 반대했다. 결론으로 본 논문은 공리주의가 주장하는 바는 효용이 정의보다 상위 개념이라는 것, 따라서 효용을 위해 정의에 대한 통념이 포기되어야 할 때도 있다는 것이다. 여기서 사람들이 공리주의에 대해 쉽게 오해하는데, 공리주의는 정의를 위한 조치라 해도 사회적 비효용을 초래한다면 바로 그런 비효율을 개선하자는 이론, 즉 맹목적인 정의에 의해 초래되는 비효율이 있고 이것이 정의를 왜곡한다는 사실을 지적하며 그런 비효율을 제거하자는 것이지 공리를 위해 정의를 포기할 수 있다고 말하지 않는다는 것이다. 따라서 구체적인 사안을 떠나 공리주의가 기본원칙으로서 어느 경우이든 예외 없이 효용이 증대된다면 부정의한 선택을 정당화하는 논리처럼 여기는 것은 잘못이라고 주장했다. In legitimizing the states power to punish criminals, many theories, including retributivism and utilitarianism, are competing. However, Utilitarianism has been suffering from unjust criticism for a long time. That is, utilitarianism accepts punishing innocent people as justifiable if such an act can maximize the goods of society as a whole, and this is a fatal weakness of the theory. Fortunately, with the efforts of R.M. Hare and F. Rosen, they found that this criticism of utilitarianism was a misreading or a severe distortion. This paper accepted their views and examined the process of misreading and distorting utilitarianism. In 1957, H. J. McCloskey invented a fictional case of a Sheriff to criticize utilitarianism. Since then, McCloskeys famous case became a criterion for understanding utilitarianism, and as a result, anyone who is told utilitarianism in the shadow of McCloskey naturally rejects utilitarianism. Many political philosophers have treated utilitarianism as a theory, tolerating and justifying punishing innocent people for social utilities. Even modern debates on the legitimacy of criminal systems have received this understanding to teach how vulnerable utilitarianism is. N. Lacey introduced by several researchers in Korea, also represents this trend. This paper explains the origin and transmission of McCloskeys sheriff case first, and how classical utilitarians such as J. Bentham and J.S. Mill understood the relation between justice and the principle of utility. For Bentham and Mill, Justice means the principal source of social utility. Benthams Utilitarianism does not justify the punishment of innocent people, and Mill opposed the argument that the principle of Utility justifies unjust actions. In conclusion, this paper argues that utility is a higher concept than justice, so there are times when conventional wisdom must be abandoned for utility in distributing justice. Many misunderstand utilitarianism right here. Utilitarianism means that if a measure for justice results in considerable social inefficiency, to blind such inefficiency as a usual matter of justice can not be tolerable. Therefore, it is a big mistake to regard utilitarianism as a theory that justifies every unjust measure if it increases utility without exception as a principle.

플라톤, 노모스와 공동선

하재홍(Ha, Jaihong) 인하대학교 법학연구소 2024 法學硏究 Vol.27 No.1

롤즈와 공동선

하재홍 ( Ha Jaihong ) 서울시립대학교 법학연구소 2024 서울법학 Vol.31 No.4

In his A Theory of Justice(1971), Political Liberalism(1993), John Rawls writes that he opposes the concept of the common good. However, there is controversy over whether Rawls completely rejects the concept of the common good or rejects a historical, philosophical idea of the common good. This article aims to examine Rawls’s exact position on the common good. For this, one problem should be removed in advance. The problem is that the concept of the common good seems to have no clear meaning. To deal with this matter properly, this paper applied a method of dividing the role of the common good into several dimensions. We use common good to discuss the purpose and legitimacy of governance and also use it to discuss an individual way of life. We use common good to discuss the principles by which individuals are socially organized, that is, the conditions of cooperation in social life, and to deal with the question of what laws and policies can contain in improving and enhancing human life. Next, this paper examined Rawls’s position according to the role as classified above. In conclusion, this paper argues that Rawls opposed the Utilitarian construction of the common good, and he tried to build another concept for the common good suitable for a society that prioritized equal freedom.

법학전문대학원 미설치 대학에서의 법학교육의 방향과 과제

하재홍 ( Ha Jai Hong ) 서울대학교 법학연구소 2010 서울대학교 법학 Vol.51 No.2

This article aims to present visions and tasks at college of law which failed to get approval of law school(school of law). What should be done in legal education was a hot issue, but became easily and completely forgotten as `law school system` got attentions as an answer to that. Competition among universities for approval of authority was keen, but a good many universities failed to get it. Now again, what is to done in legal education at college of law? Some suggest that now colleges of law should provide preparation program for civil service exams or law school entrance exams. But it is not enough to meet social demands for college of law, as a responsible institute for legal education. College of law should make up and execute growth plan voluntarily and independently. The idea that college of law should provide preparation program for civil service exams or law school entrance exams could not be a sufficient one, because it forgets social importances and duties of college of law. Colleges of law, including it`s professors and faculties, are required to show more interests in improving skills for legal education, and infra-structural surroundings of legal researches and outside workings, to establish adaptive strategies for successful execution of growth plan. Professors at college of law themselves should perform a crucial role to stimulate meaningful achievements in depressed campus, for example, sharing visions for growth plan, running legal counselling clinic, supporting students to form debating teams and issue journals of law, etc.