The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

The court below determined that the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes and the violation of the Road Traffic Act are concurrent crimes. However, if the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is a result aggravated crime which is the basic crime of a crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act, and if the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes is established, the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act is not established separately by absorbing it.

The judgment of the court below which convicted all of them should be judged as guilty is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the resulting aggravated crime, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

Sentencing of the lower court (one year and six months of imprisonment) is too unreasonable.

As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles as to the grounds for appeal, in a case where both crimes are committed as separate crimes with different legislative intent, protection of legal interests and areas of application, the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes due to drinking and the violation of the Road Traffic Act shall be deemed to be in the relation of substantive concurrent crimes (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Do7143, Nov. 13, 2008). Therefore, the court below has the relation between the crime of violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes of this case and the crime of violation of the Road Traffic Act with substantial concurrent crimes.

The decision is just and acceptable, and there is a misunderstanding of the legal principles as argued by the defendant.

subsection (b) of this section.

This part of the defendant's assertion is without merit.

Although there are no circumstances to take into account the circumstances, such as the fact that the defendant agreed with the victim only smoothly with the victim that the injured person does not want the punishment of the defendant, and that the injured person appears relatively insignificant in the degree of injury suffered by the traffic accident in this case, the crime in this case is an alcohol concentration in blood.