[Abstract] Criticism of the Theory of Sentencing on the Bar Examination It's painful to write an essay on internal issues. However, it is hoped that it will be cleaned up internally before being pointed out from the outside. So I'm going to risk a lot of criticism and make some points. As a result, most of them carry the "judgment sentence” as it is. I understand, but the sentence is too long. 『~고, ~데, ~만, ~서, ~로, ~면, ~하는바, and, but, because, by the way, so, if, what one does, in case of, and so on, etc』. It is abbreviated and pasted with multiple accessors. Thus, subject, object (purpose clause) and verb are quite separated from sentence word order. It has become a style that only experts know. If you get used to it, the sentence is also fixed as a legal sentence. Law is stuck in the head by unconsciousness and consciousness. I take it for granted. But this is not. Now I'm going to take a look at what the problem is one by one. Question bank examiners and bar exam examiners can change it if they are conscious and correct it. I would like to propose one reference point here. Korean linguists are also present at the bar exam, but they have no choice but to follow the intentions of the test takers. If a small change can change the sentence style, and a preliminary legal style, the intention this paper desires is complete. First of all, we would like to examine the elective and case-type sentences of the 9th Bar Examination in 2020 (II). I can't introduce everything because of the volume of the thesis. Therefore, only 20 sentences were selected at random. Subsequently, an analysis of the bar exam sentences is made (III). Next, we would like to highlight the problems in sentences clearly compared to the bar exam questions and the doctor's national exam questions in 2020 (IV). In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the reform of the style of the Korean bar exam. Among the virtues given to a lawyer, the most precious is the bashing of one's native language. To polish and polish the Korean language and decorate it beautifully is to beautify the hearts of the people. Such responsibilities are not only given to Korean linguists, but also to lawyers. When you look at the question of the German national examination case, the sentences are all short. It's my experience on the test. I went to the national exam a few years ago. The case of the Criminal Procedure Act was jointly presented. I wanted to refine the sentence into short sentences, and set the subject and predicate clearly. But the professor from the working class was different from what I thought. A few situations were beautifully woven into one sentence. He was used to these sentences. He fully embraced his ideas with time and consideration. The written philosophy of the bar exam questions was insufficient for the examiners. I want this paper to be an opportunity to reflect on the written theory of the bar exam question. Joseph Pulitzer (1847-1911), a journalist. "Write anything short. Then it will be read. Write clearly. Then you'll understand. Write like a picture. Then I'll stay in my memory.” Poet Na Tae-Kyu. "Please write a sentence thinking of King Sejong. Let's write a sentence while raising the spirit of Hangeul creation. Let's write more easily, write simply, and write short. Then the examinee will enjoy reading the sentences. The sentence will again be expressed in various documents through legal personnel.” The lawyers want to think of King Sejong all the time. I hope there will be more and more lawyers writing beautiful sentences. He is a lawyer with the people. Key words: Legal sentence, bar examination, Sejong the Great, Korean style, Korean grammar, doctor's national examination.