청대(淸代) 유배범(流配犯)의 실상(實相)과 지방(地方)의 관리책(管理策) -사천성(四川省) 파현(巴縣)의 사례를 중심으로-

김한밝 ( Kim¸ Hanbark ) 중국사학회 2021 中國史硏究 Vol.- No.134

For a long time in Chinese history, controlling the floating population was a task undertaken to guarantee the flow of tax revenues, secure the labor force, and control the populace. However, unlike controlling the floating population, there was a type of exile with the combined aim of punishing criminals and reinforcing the frontier. However, exiles during the Qing era were not forced to perform labor, nor were they excluded from the general public. Therefore, from the government’s perspective, the exiles were pitiful subjects who lived painful days away from their hometowns, and were simultaneously potential offenders who could commit crimes again. The 18th century was a time when military exiles’ place was fixed in general counties and the problem of managing them in the local areas emerged. Examining local officials’ comments about exiles at that time, it can be seen that there was concern that criminals could escape from the place of exile or engage in crime. At the root of this was the idea that “the exile is a person who has committed a felony and has a bad nature” and “the exile causes trouble due to hardships in life.” The two are not unrelated, but they led to different solutions, heavy punishment for recidivism or escape and livelihood assistance for exiles. However, in either way, the premise was to maintain the then existing punishment system. Unless it was fundamentally reformed, it was inevitable that exiles would accumulate in local areas; however, the central government ignored the side effects of managing exiles, or could not reform it, and delegated it to the provinces. From the standpoint of officials who needed to manage exiles, they were those that the emperor had spared from death, so they could not be left alone to die. At the same time, escape and recidivism by exiles were directly linked to the fact that they were disciplined to not manage exiles. Under these circumstances, officials had to take measures to control them to avoid punishment, and sometimes left that management to long-standing exiles. Although there is no historical material that explains why, it is thought that long-standing exiles were less likely to go against the instructions of the government than others and would not bother the general public if problems occurred. The cases in the Ba County Archives show the conditions of exiles―their livelihood, poverty, and sometimes, escape. Under these circumstances, local officials took measures to stabilize their rule and ensure that exiles did not avoid punishment, and thus sometimes left the duty of managing criminals to long-standing exiles. Unless the old punishment system was fundamentally reformed, exiles would inevitably accumulate in local areas; however, the central government did not reform the system, and instead delegated it to each province.

유배형의 시대와 발견(發遣) ― 청대(淸代) 형벌제도에서의 역할을 중심으로 ―

김한밝 ( Kim¸ Hanbark ) 명청사학회 2021 명청사연구 Vol.- No.56

From the point of view of the punishment system, Qing era was an era of exile. Exile punishments were executed more widely than ever before, from ordinary exile (liuxing), which is one of the five punishments, to military exile (chongjun), which was transformed same as ordinary exile, and penal servitude (tuxing), which served as intra-provincial exile. In addition to that, there was deportation (faqian) established in the Qing dynasty. Deportation was a punishment for sending criminals to remote areas such as the northeast, Xinjiang, and southwest regions to respond to follow-up measures such as forced labor, cultivation, and slavery. It had an aspect different from other exile punishments. In particular, unlike criminals who were exiled to China proper tended to make a living on their own, criminals of deportation had to do their assigned works. I revealed that deportation was being used flexibly and responding to the demands of the era of exile. In this study, I analyzed the nature of the crime that was set to be punished with deportation. Looking at the code of 1680, it is confirmed that there were two functions in deportation, to punish bannerman criminals and to replenish slaves by criminals. However, as it was linked with the change of the situation in the northeast region, only the non-bannerman people were changed to exile to the southwest region. In such a situation, Qing conquered Xinjiang. There was a demand for labor in Xinjiang, and there was also an overabundance of exiles in China proper. Therefore, Xinjiang began to actively used as a new place for settling exiles. However, as in the northeast region in the past, the issue of exiles arose in Xinjiang, and the exiled criminals were sent to southwest again. What can be confirmed from the above process is that, unlike the fixed system of exile in China proper, deportation was used flexibly according to its needs and circumstances. Paradoxically, deportation could be used flexibly because it was not systematized. Military exile and ordinary exile had already settled as punishment according to distance, and there was relatively little room for arbitrariness in this. However, deportation lacked unity in follow-up measures and the place of exile, so there was room for application according to the situation. Internally, deportation was able to distribute the pressure of exiles in China proper, and externally, it was possible to respond to the needs of the border region.

淸代 配所 유배범의 석방과 自新의 援用

김한밝(Kim, Hanbark) 동양사학회 2020 東洋史學硏究 Vol.150 No.-

Traditionally, in the Chinese penal system, the ideal of offenders rehabilitation was not reflected in actual punishment. Rather than the view that punishment would lead rehabilitate criminals, the view that punishment would block the possibility of rehabilitation was prevalent. For example, even in the amnesty, the emperor clarified that he would open the way for rehabilitation by releasing criminals. However, unlike the relationship between the rehabilitation and the punishment that had existed for a long time, there were proposals for releasing a criminal after a certain period of time if he was rehabilitated. This study analyzes the context and intention of these proposals, and shows one aspect of the penal system in the Qing dynasty by focusing on the amnesty. Unlike the Ming dynasty, the exile punishments of Qing dynasty were actually executed, and the prisoners were sent to the common counties, so it was closely related to local security. Moreover, as the number of prisoners has been increasing with the increase of the population, the problem of the management of prisoners in the place of exile has inevitably been a political issue. Local officials wanted to control the number of criminals who arrived at the place of exile by releasing them. However, it was not easy to overturn the traditional legal system or set a new exile term, so Qianlong Emperor tried to solve the problem of excessive number of criminals by giving a mercy to criminals in the place of exile for 10 years. The lists of criminals in the place of exile, identified in the Ba County Archives (巴縣檔案) help to measure the actual effect of the amnesty. It shows that the release of the prisoners, who had been stable for 10 years, did not do enough to relieve their excessiveness. This seems to be the reason why the criteria of the amnesty changed from 10 years to 3 years in the place of exile after Jiaqing period. And there were other amnesties for commuting exile. Such frequent pardons have resulted in shortening the actual exile terms of each criminal. The difference between exile punishment in Qing dynasty, the era of exile, was set by the exile distance. However, by frequently returning criminals in the name of rehabilitation, the difference in sentences was changing to the time in the place of exile. An exile term that came into the traditional Chinese penal system was establishing the foundation for setting a prison term even before the introduction of modern criminal law.

18세기 청조(淸朝)의 군류범(軍流犯) 관리와 신강(新疆)으로의 발견(發遣)

김한밝 ( Kim Hanbark ) 명청사학회 2016 명청사연구 Vol.0 No.45

This study analyzed that managing exiles was a key factor for deciding transition of exile in the 18th century, when military exile degenerated and ‘deportation’ escalated. Furthermore, in this study, it could be revealed that inertia of China's traditional criminal law functioned during transition of exile. Exile is a punishment sending criminals into a place of exile(peisuo), far away from their hometown. Criminals sent into a place of exile could not return their hometown forever. Executing exile costs money, a traffic network for sending criminals, and managing effort for not making criminals escape. Nevertheless, exile had been used widely in China's traditional criminal law for punishing criminals and deterring crime. There were three kinds of exile in Qing dynasty. Liuxing, one of wuxing, was a punishment had settled in Tang dynasty. It sent criminals into a place of exile by decided sentences, 2000li, 2500li, 3000li distance, and made them lead a life at a place of exile forever. Military exile had been an exile sending criminals into weisuo and serving for the military. However, in Qing dynasty, military exile degenerated like liuxing. Criminals who sentenced as military exile were not sent into weisuo, but sent into zhouxian. ‘Deportation’, uprising in Qing dynasty, was a punishment sending criminals into frontier, a northeastern area of the empire or newly acquired area, Xinjiang. After sending criminals, ‘deportation’ made them serve as a slave or carry out their duty. What made transition of exile in Qing dynasty was reduction of weisuo in the 18th Century. Reduction of weisuo, rolled as a place of exile for the military exiles in Ming dynasty, forced military exiles to be sent into zhouxian. This made military exile same as liuxing. Zhouxian, have supervised only liuxing exiles, had to supervise military exiles too from the 18th Century. Liuxing and military exile, both of them were exile for life, so the number of exiles in zhouxian became more and more. Qing tried to manage junliufan safely with various ways. At first, the empire tried to guarantee exiles' living for safety of the place of exile. Second, the empire toughened a law restraining exiles' second conviction. Third, the empire wanted to reduce the number of exiles in the place of the exile. Fourth, the empire limited a place of exile to some place safe and not important. However, these ways had limits because the effect was not continuous and the execution was difficult. Meanwhile, war with Zunghar came to an end. Qing sent criminals into Xinjiang just next year after the conquest. Exiles sent into Xinjiang were usually the people who were young, strong, and committing a mistake at the place of exile. Because they were potential risk factors for local safety, escalating of ‘deportation’ to Xinjiang related to issues of managing exiles. In the transition of exile in the 18th century, it is hard to find an intention of reforming entire criminal law. Qing was consistent in only modifying several problems on the inertia of the traditional criminal law system. Transition of exile in Qing dynasty shows a generous attitude in an execution of a death penalty, and restriction from the ancient times, which made them never think other punishment as a punishment which located in immediately below the death penalty.