The judgment of the court below is reversed.

A defendant shall be punished by imprisonment for six months.

However, the period of two years from the date this judgment becomes final and conclusive.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. Violation of the law by misapprehending the traffic law (public prosecutor) and the violation of the traffic law by reason of the violation of Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act are substantive concurrent crimes.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below that the violation of the Road Traffic Act on the ground of the violation of Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act was absorbed into the crime of the violation of the Road Traffic Act (not after the accident) is erroneous in the misunderstanding of legal principles.

B. As to the punishment of the lower court (six months of imprisonment with prison labor), the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is too unfasible, and that the prosecutor is too unfased and unfair.

2. As to the assertion of misapprehension of the legal principles, an intentional crime that requires recognition of the fact that a crime of violation of Article 54 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, which is punished by Article 148 of the same Act, is a crime of causing bodily injury or damage to goods, among crimes under Article 268 of the Criminal Act, and crimes under Article 151 of the Road Traffic Act, which are separate from the crime of protecting legal interests, subject, act, etc., the driver of a vehicle, in the event the driver of a vehicle does not take necessary measures such as relief measures under Article 54 (1) of the same Act, such as occupational injury, gross negligence, or Article 151 of the same Act, is established, and the crime of causing bodily injury or damage to a person, among crimes under Article 268 of the Criminal Act, shall be deemed as substantive concurrent crimes (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Do253, Jun. 14, 191).

3. If so, the appeal on the ground of misapprehension of the legal principles by the prosecutor is with merit. Thus, without omitting the judgment of the remaining public prosecutor and the defendant on the unfair argument of sentencing, the judgment of the court below is reversed pursuant to Article 364(6) of the Criminal Procedure Act, and the appeal is dismissed and it is