This paper aims to understand the structure of the image and its meaning around Seminar of Jacques Lacan: Book 1. Lacan understands the image as having a decisive and direct relationship between the composition of the subject and the formation of the self. Compared to the importance of images, Lacan shows limitations in explaining how images are related to the real. This point, also understood as the limit of Lacan's theory, includes the debate on the development stage of Trieb and the Oedipus period. This study, limited to the purpose of understanding the function and meaning of images in Lacanian psychoanalysis, aims to examine the structure (the virtual and real correlative structure), and how to understand the image function of pre-Oedipus, which was difficult to explain due to the limitations of Lacan. Obscure and pointed out as the limit of research, the pre-Oedipus phase of Lacan seeks to widen its understanding of image structure and function by enhancing Melanie Klein's problem and explaining D. Winnicott's transitional environment. It is especially important in that it is one of the ways to reveal the relationship between Trieb and images. Melanie Klein, in the case of Dick, demonstrated that before the Oedipus period, Lacan had already established self-organization through the formation of relationships with things, thereby reframing Donald Winnicott's meaningful notion of a transitional environment and a transitional object to present a concrete interpretation of the self-contained libido reversal. This allows this study to more clearly reveal the images that are talked about in Lacanian psychoanalysis and to extend its understanding. This point can lead to an intensified interpretation of the psychoanalysis of the whole Lacan period, and it suggests the possibility of deepening the psychoanalytic interpretation of art.