Speaking with Authority in Technical Audits

💡 TL;DR 🎯 Technical audits — quality checks, compliance reviews, system evaluations — require a specific register in Korean: precise, authoritative, neutral, and action-oriented. This lesson teaches you to ask sharp questions, deliver findings, and present conclusions in a technical audit context.

📌 Helper Note 🗒️ In Korean technical/professional settings, authority comes from precision (정확성), not volume. Weak audit language hedges too much (것 같아요) or vagues out (좀 문제가 있는 것 같기도 해요). Strong audit language is specific: 해당 항목에서 위반이 확인되었습니다 (A violation was confirmed in this item).

🔑 Big Picture

🎯 A technical audit statement has 3 parts:

1️⃣ Finding — 발견 사항: what was found (확인된 사항)

2️⃣ Assessment — 평가: how serious it is (경미한/중요한/심각한)

3️⃣ Recommendation — 조치 사항: what should be done (즉각 조치/개선 권고/모니터링)

🔑 The tone is: factual, direct, neutral — no drama, no hedging.

🧩 Core Concepts

🔍 Stating a Finding

📊 Assessing Severity

🛠️ Recommending Action

✅ Exam Strategy

✔️ Use 확인되었습니다 (was confirmed) not 있는 것 같아요 (seems to exist) for audit findings

✔️ Grade severity precisely: 경미한 / 중요한 / 심각한 / 위험 수준 — don't lump everything as "문제"

✔️ Always pair a finding with a recommendation — findings without recommendations are incomplete audit outputs

⚠️ Pitfalls

😬 Hedging in findings: "좀 문제가 있는 것 같기도 해요" — use 확인되었습니다 for factual findings

😬 Over-formality without precision: long sentences that say nothing specific

😬 Missing the severity grade — not all findings are equal; classify them

😬 Confusing 시정 (correction of a violation) with 개선 (improvement toward a better standard) — they're different actions

🗣️ Dialogue Patterns

Pattern 1 — Stating a finding:

해당 항목에서 기준 미달이 확인되었습니다.

Pattern 2 — Grading severity:

이 사항은 즉각적인 조치가 필요한 심각한 수준으로 분류됩니다.

Pattern 3 — Recommending action:

개선 계획을 수립하시고, 30일 이내에 시정 조치를 완료해 주시기 바랍니다.

Pattern 4 — Neutral authority close:

이상이 이번 감사의 주요 발견 사항이며, 각 항목에 대한 조치 계획을 제출해 주시기 바랍니다.

🧠 Nuance Bank

🔖 Try this exercise

Q1. You've found a compliance gap in a process. Which phrase states this finding most authoritatively?

① "좀 문제가 있는 것 같아요."

② "해당 프로세스가 규정을 준수하지 않고 있습니다."

③ "확인해 봐야 할 것 같아요."

④ "이건 좀 이상해요."

Answer

② — 규정을 준수하지 않고 있습니다 is the precise, factual audit finding statement.

Q2. To say "A below-standard finding was discovered in this area," you say:

① "여기가 좀 부족한 것 같아요."

② "해당 영역에서 기준 미달이 발견되었습니다."

③ "여기에 문제가 있는 것 같습니다."

④ "이 부분은 좋지 않아요."

Answer

② — 기준 미달이 발견되었습니다 is the technical audit phrasing for a below-standard finding.

Q3. An audit finding that needs immediate attention is classified as:

① 경미한 사항

② 중요한 개선이 필요한 사항

③ 즉각적인 조치가 필요한 심각한 사항

④ 모니터링 대상

Answer

③ — 즉각적인 조치가 필요한 심각한 사항 = serious matter requiring immediate action.

Q4. To recommend immediate correction, you say:

① "나중에 고쳐 주세요."

② "즉각 시정을 권고드립니다."

③ "빨리 해주세요."

④ "이건 수정해야 해요."

Answer

② — 즉각 시정을 권고드립니다 is the formal audit recommendation for immediate correction.

Q5. What's the difference between 시정 and 개선?

① They are identical

② 시정 = correcting a violation back to compliance; 개선 = improving toward a higher standard

③ 개선 is more urgent

④ 시정 is more general

Answer

② — 시정 (是正) = correcting a specific violation. 개선 (改善) = improving quality/process beyond minimum compliance.

Q6. To say "this is classified at a risk level," you say:

① "이건 위험해요."

② "위험 수준으로 분류됩니다."

③ "리스크가 있는 것 같아요."

④ "좀 걱정되는 부분이에요."

Answer

② — 위험 수준으로 분류됩니다 is the technical classification phrase for a risk-level finding.

Q7. After stating a finding, what must always follow in a technical audit?

① Another finding

② A severity grade and a recommendation for action

③ An apology

④ A question

Answer

② — Findings alone are incomplete. An audit output = finding + severity + recommendation.

Q8. To say "re-examination of this area is required," you say:

① "다시 봐야 해요."

② "이 부분에 대한 재검토가 필요합니다."

③ "확인해 보세요."

④ "이건 문제예요."

Answer

② — 재검토가 필요합니다 is the formal audit call for re-examination.

Q9. Why is 것 같아요 inappropriate in a technical audit finding?

① It's grammatically wrong

② It hedges the finding — audit findings must be stated as confirmed facts, not opinions

③ It's too formal

④ It sounds rude

Answer

② — Audit findings must be factual and confirmed: 확인되었습니다, not 것 같아요 which sounds uncertain.

Q10. To close an audit with authority, you say:

① "이만 마치겠습니다."

② "이상이 이번 감사의 주요 발견 사항이며, 각 항목에 대한 조치 계획을 제출해 주시기 바랍니다."

③ "다 봤어요."

④ "이상입니다."

Answer

② — 이상이 이번 감사의 주요 발견 사항이며 + 조치 계획을 제출해 주시기 바랍니다 = the authoritative, complete audit close.

🛠️ Speaking Formula

🔍 Audit Finding Formula:

[해당 항목에서] + [기준 미달/규정 위반/기준 미충족이] + [확인/발견되었습니다] + [이는 {경미한/중요한/심각한} 사항으로 분류됩니다] + [즉각 시정/개선 계획 수립/모니터링을 권고드립니다]

📌 Remember

🌟 Authority in audits = precision, not drama

🌟 확인되었습니다 (confirmed) > 있는 것 같아요 (seems to exist)

🌟 Always grade: 경미한 / 중요한 / 심각한 / 위험 수준

🌟 Finding + Severity + Recommendation = complete audit output

🎯 Practice Hub

1. Which phrase best states a compliance violation in a technical audit?

① "이 부분이 좀 이상한 것 같아요."

② "해당 항목에서 규정 위반이 확인되었습니다."

③ "여기가 문제인 것 같아요."

④ "이건 안 좋아요."

Answer

② — 규정 위반이 확인되었습니다 is the precise, factual audit finding.

2. 경미한 사항입니다 means:

① Immediate action required

② This is a minor / low-severity matter

③ This is a risk-level finding

④ This is a critical violation

Answer

② — 경미한 = minor/slight. 경미한 사항 = a low-severity finding.

3. To recommend that an improvement plan be established, you say:

① "개선해 주세요."

② "개선 계획을 수립해 주시기 바랍니다."

③ "좋게 바꾸세요."

④ "다시 해주세요."

Answer

② — 개선 계획을 수립해 주시기 바랍니다 = the formal audit recommendation for an improvement plan.

4. A finding graded as 위험 수준 requires:

① Ongoing monitoring only

② Documentation only

③ Immediate and decisive action

④ No immediate response

Answer

③ — 위험 수준 (risk level) = highest severity. Requires immediate and decisive response.

5. You want to say "this item does not currently meet the standard." You say:

① "이 항목은 좋지 않아요."

② "해당 항목은 현재 기준을 충족하지 못하고 있습니다."

③ "기준에 안 맞는 것 같아요."

④ "이 부분은 문제예요."

Answer

② — 현재 기준을 충족하지 못하고 있습니다 is the technical audit phrasing for failing to meet the standard.

6. To recommend ongoing monitoring, you say:

① "지켜보세요."

② "지속적인 모니터링을 권장합니다."

③ "계속 확인해요."

④ "한번 더 봐요."

Answer

② — 지속적인 모니터링을 권장합니다 is the formal recommendation for continued monitoring.

7. In a technical audit, which is the weakest finding statement?

① "기준 미달이 확인되었습니다."

② "규정을 준수하지 않고 있습니다."

③ "좀 부족한 것 같기도 해요."

④ "해당 항목은 기준을 충족하지 못하고 있습니다."

Answer

③ — 좀 부족한 것 같기도 해요 hedges with 것 같다 AND 같기도 — double hedging. Never appropriate in audit findings.

8. To say "this is a serious matter requiring immediate action," you say:

① "이건 심각해요."

② "즉각적인 조치가 필요한 심각한 사항입니다."

③ "빨리 해결해야 해요."

④ "이건 중요해요."

Answer

② — 즉각적인 조치가 필요한 심각한 사항입니다 = precise technical severity classification.

9. After findings are presented, the audit close should request:

① Nothing — just end the session

② A commitment to improvement with no follow-up

③ Each item's action plan to be submitted

④ An apology from the auditee

Answer

③ — 각 항목에 대한 조치 계획을 제출해 주시기 바랍니다 = the professional close requesting action plans for each finding.

10. The word 감사 in 이번 감사의 주요 발견 사항 refers to:

① Gratitude

② A technical audit / inspection

③ A financial report

④ A celebration

Answer

② — 감사 (監査) = audit/inspection. Different character from 감사 (感謝) = gratitude. Context determines meaning.

11. Which phrase recommends immediate correction?

① "나중에 고쳐 주세요."

② "즉각 시정을 권고드립니다."

③ "개선해 보시면 어떨까요?"

④ "수정하면 좋겠어요."

Answer

② — 즉각 시정을 권고드립니다 = the formal, authoritative recommendation for immediate correction.

12. What makes 확인되었습니다 stronger than 있는 것 같습니다 in an audit finding?

① It's shorter

② 확인되었습니다 states a confirmed fact; 있는 것 같습니다 states an uncertain opinion

③ It's more formal

④ It's passive voice

Answer

② — 확인되었습니다 = confirmed (past passive = a fact has been established). 있는 것 같습니다 = seems to exist = uncertainty. Audits require confirmed facts.

13. To say a process is not complying with regulations, you say:

① "이 프로세스가 좀 이상해요."

② "해당 프로세스가 규정을 준수하지 않고 있습니다."

③ "규정을 안 지키는 것 같아요."

④ "이건 규정에 안 맞는 것 같아요."

Answer

② — 규정을 준수하지 않고 있습니다 = is not complying with regulations. Direct, factual, technical.

14. To say "below-standard findings were discovered," you say:

① "기준보다 낮은 것 같아요."

② "기준 미달이 발견되었습니다."

③ "이 기준은 안 맞아요."

④ "기준이 충족이 안 된 것 같아요."

Answer

② — 기준 미달이 발견되었습니다 = below-standard findings were discovered. Precise, factual audit language.

15. Audit authority comes from:

① Speaking loudly and confidently

② Emotional appeals to management

③ Precise, factual language with clear severity grades and actionable recommendations

④ Using as many technical terms as possible

Answer

③ — Authority in Korean technical audits = precision (정확성) + evidence-based findings + clear recommendations.

16. "중요한 개선이 필요한 사항입니다" means:

① This is a minor issue

② This is a serious/critical violation

③ This is a matter requiring significant improvement

④ This item passes the standard

Answer

③ — 중요한 개선이 필요한 사항 = a matter requiring significant improvement (mid-level severity).

17. To say "re-examination of this process is required," you say:

① "이 프로세스를 다시 봐야 할 것 같아요."

② "이 프로세스에 대한 재검토가 필요합니다."

③ "확인해 보세요."

④ "다시 검토해 봐요."

Answer

② — 이 프로세스에 대한 재검토가 필요합니다 is the formal, technical recommendation for re-examination.

18. In technical Korean, 준수하다 means:

① To violate

② To comply with / to observe (regulations, rules)

③ To report

④ To improve

Answer

② — 준수하다 = to comply with / to observe. 규정을 준수하다 = to comply with regulations.

19. A finding with no action recommendation is:

① Complete

② Appropriate for minor issues

③ Incomplete — findings must always be paired with a recommendation

④ Acceptable if severity is noted

Answer

③ — An audit finding without a recommendation is incomplete. The recommendation closes the loop: finding → severity → action.

20. To classify a finding at the highest risk level, you say:

① "이건 좀 심각해요."

② "위험 수준으로 분류됩니다."

③ "심각한 것 같아요."

④ "리스크가 있어요."

Answer

② — 위험 수준으로 분류됩니다 is the formal technical classification for the highest risk level.

21. The word 시정 (是正) means:

① Improvement beyond the standard

② Correction of a specific violation back to compliance

③ An explanation of the finding

④ An audit conclusion

Answer

② — 시정 = correction of a specific violation. 是正 characters: 是 (right/correct) + 正 (correct/proper).

22. You want to say "ongoing monitoring is recommended." You say:

① "계속 봐주세요."

② "지속적인 모니터링을 권장합니다."

③ "한 번씩 확인해요."

④ "주시해 주세요."

Answer

② — 지속적인 모니터링을 권장합니다 is the formal audit recommendation for continued monitoring.

23. Which severity level is least urgent?

① 위험 수준

② 심각한 사항

③ 중요한 개선이 필요한 사항

④ 경미한 사항

Answer

④ — 경미한 사항 = minor issue = lowest severity level. Severity ladder: 경미한 → 중요한 개선 → 심각한 → 위험 수준.

24. To request that corrective action be completed within 30 days, you say:

① "30일 후에 해주세요."

② "30일 이내에 시정 조치를 완료해 주시기 바랍니다."

③ "한 달 안에 해요."

④ "다음 달까지 해주세요."

Answer

② — 30일 이내에 시정 조치를 완료해 주시기 바랍니다 = the precise, formal deadline statement for corrective action.

25. Which statement closes a technical audit most authoritatively?

① "이상이에요."

② "이상이 이번 감사의 주요 발견 사항이며, 각 항목에 대한 조치 계획을 제출해 주시기 바랍니다."

③ "잘 하셨어요."

④ "오늘 감사합니다."

Answer

② — 이상이 이번 감사의 주요 발견 사항이며 + 조치 계획을 제출해 주시기 바랍니다 is the complete, authoritative audit close.

26. 발견 사항 in an audit context means:

① Something that was created

② A finding / something discovered during the audit

③ A recommendation

④ A risk classification

Answer

② — 발견 사항 = finding(s) — the discovered items during an audit.

27. To say "this item currently does not meet the standard," you say:

① "이 항목은 기준에 가깝지 않아요."

② "해당 항목은 현재 기준을 충족하지 못하고 있습니다."

③ "기준이 맞지 않아요."

④ "이 항목은 부족해요."

Answer

② — 현재 기준을 충족하지 못하고 있습니다 = the precise technical statement for failing to meet the current standard.

28. An item that needs ongoing tracking but no immediate action is assigned:

① 즉각 시정

② 개선 계획 수립

③ 지속적인 모니터링 권장

④ 위험 수준 분류

Answer

③ — 지속적인 모니터링을 권장합니다 = for items that pass current standards but need to be watched.

29. The distinction between 위반 (violation) and 기준 미달 (below standard) is:

① They're identical

② 위반 = actively breaking a rule; 기준 미달 = falling short of a standard (not necessarily an active violation)

③ 기준 미달 is more serious

④ 위반 is less formal

Answer

② — 위반 = a rule/law broken. 기준 미달 = below standard (could be a quality gap, not necessarily a legal violation).

30. You want to say "this process is not following the established procedure." You say:

① "이 프로세스가 규정된 절차를 따르지 않고 있습니다."

② "이 프로세스가 이상해요."

③ "절차가 다른 것 같아요."

④ "이건 안 맞는 것 같아요."

Answer

① — 규정된 절차를 따르지 않고 있습니다 = is not following the established procedure.

31–50. (Drilling)

31. To open an audit finding report formally, you say:

① "오늘 감사 결과를 말씀드리겠습니다."

② "이번 감사에서 확인된 주요 발견 사항을 보고드리겠습니다."

③ "감사가 끝났어요."

④ "몇 가지 문제가 있어요."

Answer

② — 이번 감사에서 확인된 주요 발견 사항을 보고드리겠습니다 = formal, authoritative audit finding report opener.

32. The phrase 시정 조치 most closely means:

① An improvement plan

② Ongoing monitoring

③ Corrective action (specific steps to fix a violation)

④ A risk classification

Answer

③ — 시정 조치 = corrective action taken to fix a specific violation and bring it back to compliance.

33. When a finding is stated as 기준 미달이 확인되었습니다, the verb 확인되었습니다 means:

① Was suspected

② Was confirmed / was verified

③ Was found to possibly exist

④ Might have been found

Answer

② — 확인되었습니다 = was confirmed / has been verified. Past passive = fact established through investigation.

34. To say "a compliance review of this department is required," you say:

① "이 부서를 한번 봐주세요."

② "해당 부서에 대한 규정 준수 여부 검토가 필요합니다."

③ "이 부서가 규정을 지키는지 확인해요."

④ "이 부서를 감사해야 해요."

Answer

② — 규정 준수 여부 검토가 필요합니다 = review of compliance status is required.

35. The severity scale from least to most serious is:

① 심각한 → 중요한 → 경미한 → 위험 수준

② 경미한 → 중요한 개선 → 심각한 → 위험 수준

③ 위험 수준 → 심각한 → 중요한 → 경미한

④ All are equally serious

Answer

② — 경미한 (minor) → 중요한 개선 (significant improvement needed) → 심각한 (serious) → 위험 수준 (risk level).

36. You've found three issues. You present them in order of severity. The most serious goes:

① Last

② First

③ In the middle

④ Severity order doesn't matter

Answer

② — In Korean audit reporting, most critical findings typically lead. This ensures the most urgent items receive immediate attention.

37. To say "the documentation does not meet the required standard," you say:

① "서류가 부족한 것 같아요."

② "해당 문서가 요구 기준을 충족하지 못하고 있습니다."

③ "서류가 좀 이상해요."

④ "문서가 기준에 안 맞아요."

Answer

② — 요구 기준을 충족하지 못하고 있습니다 = does not meet the required standard.

38. 개선 계획 (improvement plan) is requested when:

① The finding requires an immediate fine

② The situation needs structural improvement, not just a single correction

③ No action is needed

④ The finding is at the risk level only

Answer

② — 개선 계획 is requested when the finding requires systematic improvement — not just a one-time fix.

39. To say "this is a critical matter requiring immediate action," you say:

① "이건 중요해요."

② "즉각적인 조치가 필요한 심각한 사항으로 분류됩니다."

③ "빨리 해야 해요."

④ "이건 위험할 수도 있어요."

Answer

② — 즉각적인 조치가 필요한 심각한 사항으로 분류됩니다 = classified as a serious matter requiring immediate action.

40. The word 권고 in 시정을 권고드립니다 means:

① Order / command

② Recommendation / advisory guidance

③ Warning / threat

④ Approval

Answer

② — 권고 = recommendation/advice. It's stronger than a suggestion but softer than a command — the standard register for audit recommendations.

41. Which phrase signals that an audit is now complete?

① "이상이 이번 감사의 주요 발견 사항입니다."

② "오늘 감사는 여기서 마무리하겠습니다."

③ "이상이 이번 감사의 주요 발견 사항이며, 조치 계획을 제출해 주시기 바랍니다."

④ Both ① and ③

Answer

③ — The complete close includes findings summary + the action request (조치 계획 제출 요청) for next steps.

42. To say "significant improvement is needed in this process," you say:

① "이 프로세스가 안 좋아요."

② "해당 프로세스에서 중요한 개선이 필요한 것으로 확인되었습니다."

③ "이 프로세스를 더 잘 해야 해요."

④ "이 프로세스에 문제가 있어요."

Answer

② — 중요한 개선이 필요한 것으로 확인되었습니다 = significant improvement was confirmed to be needed. Full audit language.

43. In technical Korean audits, 기준 미달 means:

① Exceeded the standard

② Below the standard / failing to meet the benchmark

③ At the standard

④ Slightly above the standard

Answer

② — 기준 미달 = below standard. 기준 = standard/benchmark; 미달 = falling short of.

44. You want to recommend that corrective action be completed within a specific timeframe. You say:

① "빨리 해주세요."

② "해당 시정 조치는 [기간] 이내에 완료해 주시기 바랍니다."

③ "다음 분기까지 해요."

④ "시간이 있을 때 해요."

Answer

② — [기간] 이내에 완료해 주시기 바랍니다 = please complete within [timeframe]. The formal timebound recommendation.

45. Which describes the complete structure of a single audit finding?

① Finding only

② Finding + recommendation

③ Finding + severity grade + recommendation

④ Severity grade + recommendation only

Answer

③ — Finding (what was found) + Severity (how serious) + Recommendation (what to do) = complete audit finding.

46. 규정 (規定) in a technical context means:

① A standard/benchmark

② Regulation / rule / stipulation

③ A suggestion

④ A guideline (non-binding)

Answer

② — 규정 = regulation/rule. 규정 준수 = regulatory compliance; 규정 위반 = regulatory violation.

47. To say "ongoing monitoring is recommended for this item," you say:

① "이 항목은 계속 봐요."

② "해당 항목에 대한 지속적인 모니터링을 권장합니다."

③ "이 항목은 지켜보면 돼요."

④ "나중에 또 확인해요."

Answer

② — 해당 항목에 대한 지속적인 모니터링을 권장합니다 = the formal ongoing monitoring recommendation.

48. After all findings are presented, the most professional close is:

① "질문 있으세요?"

② "이상이 이번 감사의 발견 사항이며, 각 항목에 대한 조치 계획서를 [기한] 까지 제출해 주시기 바랍니다."

③ "오늘 수고하셨습니다."

④ "이상입니다."

Answer

② — Including a specific submission deadline for action plans makes the close actionable and complete.

49. An audit finding described as 경미한 사항 requires:

① Immediate shutdown

② A risk-level response

③ Note and tracking — it's low severity

④ An emergency meeting

Answer

③ — 경미한 사항 = minor — note it, track it, but no urgent action required.

50. The most authoritative way to state that a violation was found is:

① "위반이 있을 수도 있어요."

② "위반이 있는 것 같습니다."

③ "위반이 확인되었습니다."

④ "위반인지 확인해 봐야 할 것 같아요."

Answer

③ — 위반이 확인되었습니다 = a violation has been confirmed. Direct, factual, past-passive — the language of established fact.