[단독]”Same as solidarity practice test” Professors are also surprised

“I think it is impossible to answer this question even if the scenes of public law records (lawyer exam subjects) come to you without seeing it before the exam.”

The 10th bar exam (5-9 days) is controversial even before the exam is over. On the 5th, there were claims that the afternoon record-type test was similar to a law school practice test. According to the test takers who raised the suspicion, the questions were presented at’almost the same level’ as the mock exams and lecture materials from the Yonsei University Law School’s bar exam preparation class (public law dispute practice).

The question was presented in a record-type exam for public law (constitutional, administrative law) subjects. Among the test takers, there are many reactions that this test was the most difficult.

On the 7th, C (32), who is taking the bar exam, said, “The last exam on the first day was a so-called’unintelligence’ that he got stuck because he wasn’t expected at all. It is a part that lecturers and professors do not teach well when giving lectures. Everyone must have been surprised because of the problem.” He said, “I was surprised to see the solidarity law school problem uploaded to the law school student community. I am sorry for this suspicion in the middle of the exam.”

According to examinees, etc., the record test consists of dozens of documents and questions, so it is not easy to overlap the details of the issues to be solved. In both the bar exam and the solidarity mock exam, it is said that the plaintiffs were all related to the property of the servants. It was about a rights struggle that took place when the administration forcibly accepts rights or ownership for the public good. Attorney Seong-min Kang (written by the law firm), who teaches public law subjects to test takers, said, “In the bar exam, it is difficult to match 50% of the questions, but this is almost the same as 100%.”

Not only the examinees, but also some law school professors expressed their position of doubt. Lee Chang-hyun, a law school professor at Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, insisted, “If there is a suspicion and something has happened, it is a matter that needs investigation. Immediately after the examination, an investigation must be conducted at the bar association level.” Jeong Seon-gyun, a professor at Sogang University Law School, said, “I don’t know who can answer without practicing in advance because of the facts that are too side-by-side,” he said. “It is impossible to answer even if the scene of public law records comes without seeing it before the exam.” In the Yonsei University class where controversy over similar issues has been raised, Professor A is in charge of the constitution and Professor B is in charge of the administrative law.

It is also recounted that Yonsei University was caught in a similar controversy two years ago. At the time, the question of the constitutional court’s decision on the constitution of the military chanting system was presented in the bar exam (public law case type). Prior to this, it was reported that Professor A posted the issue of the case related to the subject in the corridor of the reading room at Yonsei University.

Professor A dismissed the suspicion in a phone call with the JoongAng Ilbo on the morning of the 8th, saying, “We are handing out preparation materials to students just before the exam. At that time, the issue of the Yeongchang system was the hottest issue in the constitutional precedent, so the professor who did not point out the problem.” He said, “Regarding the administrative law where the story comes out, another professor in the same class is in charge.”

Professor B, who asked questions similar to this year’s bar exam in the school mock exam, said, “I haven’t entered the questionnaire, so I don’t know. I haven’t seen the bar exam this year. I wasn’t involved in the question at all.”

A lawyer who was a former bar exam committee member said, “The test management committee prepares the problem pool and preliminary questions. You should not solve the problem that your school has made with the problem pool, and you should not submit the same questions for each school. You mix problems and issues a little. “It combines problems that apply common precedents,” he explained. He said, “Yonsei University students have taken the test after hearing all the scoring reviews for this question, but it is unconventional. It seems that an investigation is necessary.”

The Ministry of Justice said on the day that “there is no professor affiliated with the law school among the members of the questionnaire for public law records.” It is explained that there is no Yonsei University professor on the committee for the subject. He said, “As soon as the facts are confirmed, we will take necessary measures in accordance with the laws and principles.”

In the second test of the CPA in 2019, there was a suspicion of “Illegal questions”. At the time, the Financial Supervisory Service investigated the suspicion that the mock test at a private university in Seoul was similar in the actual test, then answered all the two controversial questions correctly, and commissioned the prosecution to investigate the questionnaire who raised the question.

However, about eight months later, in May of last year, the Seoul West District Prosecutors’ Office issued no charges against the controversial professor. The prosecution said, “There is room for disagreement regarding the sameness and similarity of both issues, and there is no evidence to conclude that the suspect was a copy of the above mock test.”

In this bar exam,’underlined controversy’ is also taking place. The Ministry of Justice said in November last year, “You should not use scribbles or line marks in the test code,” but some test sites allowed the act of underlining the code, making equity issues a problem. The Ministry of Justice belatedly on the 7th changed the rules of the examination to allow underlining of the code. In addition, confusion among test takers increased as corona19 confirmed patients, who had restricted their exams by publishing the exam announcement by the Ministry of Justice, were able to take the exam just before the exam according to the decision of the Constitutional Court.
Reporter of Women’s Bureau [email protected]