This study investigates the types of presuppositions present in Yang Jong Hoon’s utterances in the series "Law School". The aim of this study is to understand how presuppositions are used in professional settings by lawyers and prosecutors. The analysis is based on theories by Yule (1996, 2020). The findings reveal that there are similarities and differences in the use of presuppositions when Yang Jong Hoon was a prosecutor and a lawyer. A similarity between both roles is that factive presupposition only occurred once as the legal profession requires credibility. The most prominent types of presupposition, however, show differences. In Yang Jong Hoon’s utterances as a prosecutor, existential presupposition appears most frequently in order to successfully charge the defendant as guilty, often done by presenting proof. On the other hand, in Yang Jong Hoon’s utterances as a lawyer, lexical presupposition appears most frequently to recount the situation and thus use change-of-state verbs. The study concludes that a thorough understanding and strategic use of presuppositions are essential for effective argumentation in legal debates.