This study aims to identify types of attack and defense strategies each candidate for the South Korean Secretary of Education took during the confirmation hearing Q&A session by using the persuasive attack and defense strategy frames (Benoit & Wells, 1996). The confirmation hearings of the Secretary of Education-designate Mr. Shin-il Kim from Moo-hyn Roh’s regime and Mr. Do-yeon Kim from Myung-bak’s regime were selected and analyzed as they were held by the same committee under the 17th National Assembly. The result shows that strategy stressing accountability is the attack strategy that the hearing committee members adopted most at the confirmation hearings. However, during Mr. Shin-il Kim’s confirmation hearing, the committee members from the ruling party (Uri Party) tended to take the strategy accused committed offensive act before while the members from the opposition party (Hannara Party) took the strategy emphasizing inconsistency. On the contrary, during the Mr. Do-yeon Kim’s confirmation hearing, the committee members from the ruling party (Hannara Party) focused on the strategy emphasizing accountability while the opposition party (Minjoo Party) took the strategy emphasizing responsibility for the act. Although both parties used the same strategies, the contents highlighted differed according to the ideology that each party upheld. For instance, Hannara Party stressed autonomy of private schools and harmful effects of uniform education while Minjoo Party focused on concerns for revival of college admission tests and intensification of inequality in educational opportunities. Another founding was that the strategy of mortification was most used by the committee members at the confirmation hearings. The candidates repeatedly used the strategy of bolstering and corrective actions. In particular, when responding to questions by the opposition party, the candidates mainly adopted mortification, denial, defeasibility, provocation, or differentiation to avoid risks and, when responding to the questions by the ruling party, used bolstering and corrective action strategies in order to express their own opinions on issues in education. Lastly, in terms of attack strategies taken by the committee members, both parties took strategies stressing accountability when either of the parties were positioned as the ruling party. On the other hand, the parties took strategies emphasizing denial, responsibility for the act, and inconsistency when either of the parties were positioned as the opposition party. Based on these findings, it was identified that according to the party’s position as ruling or opposition, there were differences in the attack strategy of committee members for the confirmation hearing, which consequently led to shifts in defense strategies of the candidates of the Secretary of Education-designate. Although both parties used the same strategy of extent of the damage, the contents highlighted such as autonomy versus equality differed according to the liberal or conservative ideology that each party upheld.