국민과 비국민의 경계 = The Boundaries between "Citizens" and "Non-Citizens": -A Case of "Korean War-Bereaved Association Incidents"

국문 초록 (Abstract)

한국전쟁기에 많은 민간인이 학살당하였다. 희생자들은 재판없이 처형당하였으며 유족들은 희생자들이 언제 어디에서 처형당하였는지도 알 수 없었고 그 주검을 수습하지도 못하였다. 4·19혁명으로 이승만 정권이 붕괴되자 이승만 독재의 한부분으로서 민간인학살이 먼저 국회에서 쟁점화되었으며 이에 힘입어 경상남북도를 사례로 해서 피학살자유족회가 결성되어 피학살자를 기억하는 유족운동을 전개하였지만 5·16 군사쿠데타 정권에 의해서 탄압을 당하였다. 유족운동에 참가한 유족들은 유족회사건으로 혁명재판에 회부되었다. 혁명재판에서의 검사의 공소 사실, 재판부의 판결, 검사와 피고인의 상소 이유 등을 살펴보면 재판의 쟁점이 피학살자가 ‘국민’인가 ‘비국민’인가 하는 데 놓여 있었음을 알 수 있었다. 유족회와 유족회 활동이 반국가적인가 아닌가 하는 것은 그 연장선 상에 놓여 있었다. 판결문은 “북한괴뢰의 동조자였던 보련원 및 국가보안법 기 미결수의 피살은 불법에 의한것이라 할지라도 반공을 국시로 하는 대한민국의 충실한 국민이라고 할 수 없을진대…”라고 하였다. 이는 피학살자는 단지 비국민이라는 이유로 학살을 당하고도학살자에게 죄를 물을 수도 없고 그들의 죽음을 애도해서도 안 되는 ‘호모 사케르’ 였음을 말한다. 국민과 비국민의 경계는 유동적이었다. 예컨대 유족회사건에서 유일하게 사형을 선고받은 유족의 피학살자 아내는 보련원도 국가보안법 기미결수도 아니었다. 이와 같이 유족회사건에 대한 재판 기록은 피학살자들이 비국민, 곧 ‘호모 사케르’였을 뿐 아니라 ‘호모 사케르’를 창출하는 ‘예외 상황’이 여전히 ‘예외’가 아니었음을 나타낸다.

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

A huge number of civilians were massacred before and during the Korean War. Victims were executed without trials; the family members of victims were neither informed of when and where the executions were carried out nor could they collect their dead bodies. With the “April 19 Revolution” or April Popular Uprising of 1960 toppling down the Syngman Rhee’s regime, civilian massacre as part of legacies of Rhee’s dictatorship was issued in the Korean National Assembly. Encouraged by this, Korean War-bereaved Associations (KWBA) were formed around north and south Gyungsang provinces and they carried out movements to memorize the slaughtered, but they soon faced a crackdown of the new government which had taken power through the military coup on May 16. Those who participated in the movements were brought to trial for the KWBA incident. Looking at the indictment, the verdict and the reasons for appeal put forward by the prosecutor and the defendants, the issue of the trial was whether the massacred were “citizens” or “non-citizens.” It was in line with that whether the KWBA and their activities were antinational or not. The verdict said, “Though it is illegal to kill the prisoners on trial who were involved with the National Guidance Alliance or Bodoyeonmaeng incident or violated the National Security Act, they sympathized with the puppet government of North Korea and they cannot be said to be faithful citizens of Korea which takes an anticommunist line, therefore ……” This implies that the massacred could not accuse the massacres of their crimes and their deaths could not be mourned for the reason that they were not citizens anymore; they were “homo sacer”. The line between citizen and noncitizen was moveable. For example, the only person, the wife of a victim, who was sentenced to death in KWBA incident had been neither the member of Bodoyeonmaeng nor a prisoner on trial for the violation of the National Security Act. Thus the records concerning the trial of KWBA show not only that the slaughtered were not only non-citizens-that is “homo sacer”- but that the “exceptional situations” which had created “homo sacers” were still not “exceptional”.