Why I Started Studying Law
I wanted to study law because I felt that my understanding of it was far too weak compared to how important it is.
Law is everywhere. It shapes contracts, companies, labor, platforms, property, punishment, rights, and the basic structure of the state. If I want to understand technology, business, institutions, or society more realistically, I need at least a basic sense of how law works.
But at the beginning, I did not even have that basic language. I could not clearly explain what civil law or criminal law was, or how constitutional law differed from ordinary statutes. Specific details can always be searched later, but I did not want to remain in a state where the basic map itself was missing.
So I decided to study law once in a structured way.
Why I Chose the Degree-by-Self-Education Exam
I used the Degree-by-Self-Education law exam as my study framework.
The purpose was not to obtain another degree. I chose it because it gave me a clear structure for studying law. When I do not know where to begin, I often find certification-style exams useful. They define the scope, organize the fundamentals, and create an external standard.
I personally do not enjoy learning broad fields through casual introductory books or light educational content. I feel more comfortable when I can start from the basics and follow a systematic path. The exam subjects gave me exactly that.
There were three reasons this format worked well for me.
First, the scope was clear. Instead of vaguely thinking, "I should study law someday," I could follow a defined list of subjects and build a rough map of the legal system.
Second, the difficulty was appropriate. Very easy introductory lectures often feel unsatisfying after finishing them, while other legal exams can be too broad or too specialized. This exam was demanding enough to make me study properly, but not so overwhelming that it became unrealistic.
Third, it created a deadline. If I only think that I should study something someday, I usually touch it briefly and postpone it. Once an exam date exists, the study has a schedule. I needed that kind of pressure.
In the end, I passed the exam. The result mattered, but more importantly, the exam gave me a reason to build a basic legal framework from zero.
What I Studied
The subjects covered legal theory, constitutional law, civil law, criminal law, administrative law, social law, and international law.
In legal theory, I studied what law is, how it differs from other social norms, how law is classified, how legal systems are structured, how statutes are interpreted, and how judgments work. I found the difference between the common law system and the continental legal system especially interesting.
In constitutional law, I studied the characteristics of constitutions, constitutional history, the structure of the state, fundamental rights, social rights, the legislature, the judiciary, the executive branch, and institutions such as the Constitutional Court and the National Election Commission. I was surprised by how detailed constitutional law can be. At the same time, I felt that the higher a legal norm becomes, the more abstract it becomes. That abstractness made constitutional law interesting.
One topic that stayed with me was the right of resistance. It is not simply written in the Korean Constitution as a direct rule, but there are discussions about whether the spirit of the April 19 Revolution in the preamble can be interpreted as a constitutional basis for resistance. That kind of interpretation felt fascinating. Law was not just about reading one sentence and applying it mechanically. It required interpretation, history, principles, and institutional context.
In civil law, I studied basic principles, legal persons, natural persons, agency, expression of intent, objects of rights, property law, obligations, family law, commercial law, and civil procedure. Civil law felt closer to everyday life than the other subjects, but it was also difficult because there were so many exceptions. I found court interpretation around possession especially interesting because it showed how legal reasoning can become very precise.
In criminal law, I studied the principles of punishment, the concept of crime, attempts, impossibility, accomplices, penalties, and criminal procedure. Criminal procedure was particularly interesting. Compared to civil law, criminal law felt more strict and less flexible in some areas. The principle of legality and nulla poena sine lege left a strong impression on me. It made sense that when the state punishes a person, the rules must be especially clear and restrained.
Administrative law was personally less interesting to me. Social law was more accessible, especially labor law. I was surprised to learn that employment cannot simply be terminated without legal structure or justification. International law was relatively light in the materials I studied.
What Changed While Studying
Before studying law, I often thought law was something like: "If a rule is written, just apply it."
After studying, that view changed.
Law is not just a list of fixed commands. It is closer to a system for interpreting, adjusting, and applying norms to complex reality. The more abstract the issue becomes, the more room there is for interpretation. The more specific the situation becomes, the more judgment is required. Law is not a machine that produces predetermined outputs from fixed inputs. It is a framework for reasoning about how to handle conflicts and coordinate behavior in society.