Hanjeon(韓傳) Samgukgi(三國志) and Hanjeon(韓傳) Whohanseo(後漢書) which are the raw materials of the study on Samhan(三韓) present partly different facts each other. The distinction is so evident under standing the political history that it has been an obstacle for the study on Samhan(三韓). Accordingly this thesis aims at the research of the raw material and criticism of the record of Hanjeon(韓傳), Whohanseo(後漢書) which is different from Samgukgi(三國志). It need to make clean of my viewpoint on the interpretation and the direction of the appreciation of the raw material. We have to research the just appreciation of the record on Hanieon (韓傳) Samgukgi(三國志) before we approach at the record on Hanjeon(韓傳), Whohanseo(後漢書). But there have been some problems in style on Hanjeon(韓傳) Samgukgi(三國志) and in the understanding of its reality had some difficulties. Accordingly I suggest my viewpoint on the record of Hanjeon(韓傳), Samgukgi(三國志) on the problem of the style. I suggest that the first Byunjinjeon(弁辰傳) is the record on Byunjinhan(弁辰韓). I thought that we could never divide Hanjeon(韓傳), Samgukgi(三國志) for approach to the original style and details. It is possible to reveal the problem clearly on the record of Hanieon(韓傳), Whohanseo(後漢書) through the approach on Hanjeon(韓傳), Samgukgi(三國志). But there are many difficulties in the revelation of the original text of the record on Hanjeon(韓傳), Whohanseo(後漢書) which is dissimilar from Samgukgi(三國志). Considering the mentioned facts, I analyzed and researched of Hanjeon(韓傳), Whohanseo(後漢書) comparing with Hanjeon(韓傳), Samgukgi(三國志). So I thought that the record of Hanjeon(韓傳), Whohanseo(後漢書) which are dissimilar with Hanjeon(韓傳), Samgukgi(三國志) throughly depended upon Hanjeon(韓傳), Sarngukgi (三國志). In the case of the change of historical subject, We may take account of the influence of Werac(鍵略) to writing of the record of Whohanseo (後漢書). But I attempted to interpret on the record of Hanjeon(韓傳), Whohanseo(後漢書) which was different with Samgukgi(三國志) for the reconstruction of Hanjeon(韓傳), Samgukgi(三國志). So the record of Whohanseo(後漢書) which is dissimilar with Samgukgi(三國志) in historical subject was the result of the reconstruction on the style of Hanjeon(韓傳), Samgukgi(三國志). The record of Whohanseo(後漢書) which is different with Samgukgi(三國志) in historical details was the result of the reconstruction of the record of Hanjeon(韓傳), Samgukgi(三國志). As a result, I conclude that Hanjeon(韓傳), Whohanseo(後漢書) never has a priority to Hanjeon(韓傳), Samgukgi(三國志) in each dissimilar record, because the process of the reconstruction on Hanjeon(韓傳 }, Samgukgi(三國志) may has made the record of Hanjeon(韓傳), Whohanseo(後漢書) which are mistaken.