초록 close

Legal scholars and judges often use the notion of ratio legis in oder to justify their normative conclusion or decision, whether implicitly or explicitly. They claim a ratio legis which they founded as if an objective one. As everyone knows, it is extremely difficult to specify the criteria necessary for grasping an objective purpose of the law. Although some argue that the purpose of a law can be confirmed objectively, we believe that objective legal purpose do not exist at all, because the purpose of a legal rule or ratio legis does depend on those who draft, enact, interpret, or apply the law as a necessity. From this point of view, the author believes that judges should justify their interpretation of a legal rule and adjudication with a sound and persuasive arguments or a good judical reasoning. It is hard to distinguish between a good legal reasoning and a bad judical reasoning. To find a criteria, in this paper the author introduces the notion of phronesis, techne and rhetorica of Aristotle‘s practical philosophy as a abbreviated form of Scharffs’ article, and analyses the feature of sentencing in korean criminal trial from the argumentative point of view. As Aristotle and Scharffs already stressed, the author also asserts that only in combination do practical wisdom(decision), craft(legal opinion), and rhetoric(persuasion)create a balanced, complete, compelling account of judical reasoning.