In recent years, the research on the criminal law during the Zhanguo _??__??_, Qin and Han periods tends to become popular. However, it is mainly researched on the area of particular issues in criminal law which argues about the concrete contents and the methods of execution of punishment or the concepts of each crime. On the other hand, it is hardly researched on the area of the general theory of criminal law which aims to throw light on the general principle which is common to each provision. To review how the criminal law in those days tended to punish in general will be useful to know how the Qin-Han dynasty aimed to rule the people. Therefore, at this article, as the first thing of the research on the area of the general theory of criminal law during the Zhanguo, Qin and Han periods, I will review about the problems concerning the complicity in those days.
First, in the Tang _??_ law, it was the principle that "zaoyi _??__??_" (the person who played a role most taking the lead in the forming of criminal intent and the plan of the crime) was admitted as "shou _??_" (the principal) among out of the accomplices, on the other hand, "suicongzhe _??__??__??_" (the persons except the zaoyi among out of the accomplices) had their sentences reduced one degree than zaoyi.
But, the Qin law punished complicity in the way of being different from the Tang law completely. It was the principle that, in the Qin law, it sentenced all the accomplices to the same penalty, but the punishment by the shoucong zhi fa _??__??__??__??_ (the law on principal and accessories) like the Tang law isn't seen.
On the other hand, during the Han dynasty, there were two ways to punish the complicity. That is, there are examples to sentence all the accomplices to the same penalty like the Qin law, on the other hand, there are examples to punish complicity in the way of being similar in the shoucong zhi fa of the Tang law which punished a mastermind heavily among out of the accomplices and inflicted a light penalty on the other accomplices relatively, too. Out of these two different punishment ways, the former was one by the regulation of the article in the law, whereas the latter was one by the extrajudicial executions which only the emperor could process.
Then, a punishment to the complicity which is similar to the shoucong zhi fa during the Han dynasty was done by quoting so-called "Chunqiu zhi yi _??__??__??__??_ which was based on the thought of "Chunqiu Gongyangzhuan_??__??__??__??__??_. That the punishment which is similar to the shoucong zhi fa during the Han dynasty began to be done was related closely to the appearance of Gongyangzhuan since Wudi _??__??_ period of the Former Han. On the other hand, it thinks that to have inflicted all the accomplices on the same penalty during the Qin-Han dynasty was due to the influence of the legalist who tended to be admitted should conform the regulation of the law.
But, to use as the standard which replaces law in the trial, Chunqiu zhi yi was very unstable because it was not a legal standard and was a moral standard. Therefore, Chunqiu zhi yi permitted state to do a severe punishment arbitrarily. However, the punishment of the complicity which is similar to the shoucong zhi fa eased the punishment of the complicity which was specified by the law. But, it becomes penalty relaxation consequently only by chance, as for emperor's being able to be anyway processed, the cause was the same as punishing severely arbitrarily completely. Therefore, the trial by Chunqiu zhi yi was one of the elements to support a despotic control by the emperor.

抄録全体を表示

Recent studies of the late medieval Japanese constitutional history focus on regional communities, and place special focus on the fact that the structure of social order was autonomous and self-enforced by the people themselves. These viewpoints are based upon the concept of the Kubo, which has a meaning of keeping the village community peace. Examining the term Kubo mainly, I will reconsider the position of the feudal lord in the late medieval village community.
From the research of the Kubo in Suganoura during the Muromachi era, I found that the concept of the public (Oyake, [_??_]) in the late medieval regional community has a strong relationship with the govern-mental authorities. This means that we have to attach more importance to the substance of the Kubo - the governmental authorities, to say more, being the lord of the manor.
Considering above, I carried out the research on the position of the feudal lord by examining Kujo Masamoto, who was a lord of Hine-no-sho. Kujo was struggling with the Hosokawa family (Shugo, _??__??_) and the heads of the Negoro-temple for the dominance of the Hine-no-sho. Kujo's power base was not as strong as Hosokawa's, but the regional community never prevented Kujo from being the lord of the manor. This was because of the legitimacy derived from his position as the Kubo. I can also find that the Negoro-temple possessed the necessary qualities for the position as lord, as they had not only sufficient military forces but also religious authority accepted by the regional community. The Negoro-temple therefore succeeded Kujo as the next lord with few complications.
In conclusion, although recent studies place too much emphasis on the said concept of the Kubo, it is impossible to clarify the whole constitutional situation during the late medieval period from these onesided views. It is therefore necessary to regard the feudal lord from a more holistic perspective, in other words, by attaching importance not only to the concept of the Kubo but also to the substance of it.

抄録全体を表示