이 논문은 강화도 함락의 원인을 기술하는 데 활용된 대표적인 사료인 羅萬甲의 『丙子錄』을 비판 적으로 독해함으로써, 이 저술이 史料로서 갖고 있는 한계점을 부각하였다. 그리고 敗戰의 원인을 다 각도로 분석하여, 강화도의 함락이 지휘관의 역량보다는 朝·淸 양국 간의 현격한 戰力 차이에서 초 래된 것이라는 점을 강조하였다. 이를 통해 종전 후 강화도 함락의 책임을 규명하고 책임자를 처벌하 는 사안이 단순히 전투상의 功過만을 고려하여 이루어진 것이 아니었다는 점을 논증하였다. 淸軍의 상륙 당시 江都檢察使 金慶徵은 소수의 육군 병력을 지휘하면서 다수의 판단 착오와 실책 을 저질렀다. 그러나 軍務에 대한 기본적인 책임은 여러 사료에서 강조되고 있듯이 江華留守兼舟師大將 張紳의 몫이었다. 장신의 처형 이후에도 朝野의 여론은 김경징의 처형을 집요하게 주장하였다. 그 배경에는 종전 이후 패전의 책임을 둘러싸고 벌어진 金旒 등의 主和派 大臣과 이를 공격하는 斥和派言官 간의 갈등이 내재하고 있었다. 김경징에 대한 공격은 아버지 김류의 전쟁 책임 및 정치적 입지 와 긴밀하게 연관된 정치적 사안이었다. 강화도 방어 작전의 중심 역할과는 거리가 있었던 김경징이 끝내 처형될 수밖에 없었던 이유는 함 락 이후 그가 보인 保身的 태도와 행적 때문이었다. 世子嬪과 元孫, 大君, 老母 등을 남겨두고 홀로 도주한 행위는 강도검찰사의 임무와 책임뿐만 아니라 父母에 대한 義理마저 저버린 敗逆한 행위였다. 요컨대 김경징의 처벌은 군사적인 측면의 책임보다 도덕적·의리적 측면의 책임을 물어 시행된 것이 라고 결론내릴 수 있다.
Critically examined in this article is Na Man-gab/羅萬甲`s 『Byeongja-rok/丙子錄(The Byeongja-year Journals』, which have been consulted for many years as a crucial text that recorded the real reasons for the fall of the Gang`hwa-do defense line. Although this text has been consulted as an academic resource, it actually has some problems to be considered as an impartial and objective source of information. Keeping that in mind, this author tried to find out from various perspectives the reasons that forced the Joseon government to suffer a catastrophic defeat, and results of such analysis suggests that the Gang`hwa-do defense posture was breached and neutralized not because the leading commanding officer was incompetent but because the Joseon military capabilities were far behind those of the Qing/淸 forces. This discovery also suggests that the Joseon government`s discussions after the war that led to placing political blames on certain commanders and also to punishing people who were deemed responsible, was not a process that was solely based upon objective wartime performance evaluations. When the Qing forces arrived at the island, the commanding officer("Gangdo Geomchal-sa, 江都檢察使," Inspector and patrol officer of the Gang`hwa-do island) Kim Gyeong-jing/金慶徵, while only commanding a small infantry unit, displayed many errors in judgment and other than that also committed a variety of mistakes. So he was found guilty for not doing his job competently in a time of war. Yet the ultimate responsibility for defending the island, and overseeing all military matters related to that task, was at the time placed on the shoulders of an officer named Jang Shin/張紳, who was serving as the Gang`hwa-do prefect and commanding officer of the Naval troops("江華留守兼舟師大將"), as indicated in many historical texts. It was in fact Jang Shin, and not Kim Gyeong-jing, that had to receive the ultimate blame. Yet, even after Jang Shin was executed, people demanded that Kim Gyeong-jing be executed as well. There was an ongoing conflict between high ranking officials who supported the idea of calling a truce (主和派, led by Kim Ryu/金旒) and the Remonstrations officers who blamed them for that idea(斥和派), inside the Joseon government at the time. The attacks upon Kim Gyeong-jing was in fact a political attack upon his father Kim Ryu, as well as Kim Ryu`s position inside the government. Kim Gyeong-jing was not directly involved with the task of defending the Gang`hwa-do island, but he was summarily executed nonetheless. And the reason he was executed even when he was not directly responsible for the fall of the defense line, was because he acted like a person that was trying to save his own neck even after Gang`hwa-do fell and Joseon was defeated. He ran away, leaving the crown-princess(世子嬪), the son of the crown prince(元孫), other princes(大君) and even his own mother behind. That was not only a failure to uphold his own duties as a commanding officer defending a crucial post at the Gang`hwa-do island, but also a betrayal to his own parents and his moral obligations as a person. Such betrayal was simply inexcusable, even more than his military failures. In short, Kim Gyeong-jing was executed not because he was punishable by death for his lack of military competence, but because he was punishable by death for his lack of morality and just character.
