: In criminal law, as a general rule, there are as many crimes as there are acts, and the perpetrator is punished separately for each one. However, sometimes this leads to excessive punishment, so it might be preferable for lawmakers, to punish the perpetrator for one crime even if there are multiple crimes involved, somewhat rewarding the perpetrator. In the case of multiple crimes, the principles regarding concurrence determine for which crimes the perpetrator should be held responsible. These principles can be either expressly stated in law or achieved through interpretation. When a single act leads to multiple crimes, the concept of ideal concurrence comes into consideration. Provided that the crimes are of the same type, it’s called similar idealconcurrence, otherwise disimilar ideal concurrence. However, in some situations, despite the existence of multiple crimes, through the relations between norms or interpretation, we might conclude that only one crime has in fact been committed. In cases where there appears to be a combination of multiple crimes, apparent concurrence, only one norm can actually be applicable to the perpetrator, and the others retreat. In some cases of apparent concurrence the principle of lex specialis applies. If one of the crimes encompasses all the elements of another crime while also having additional elements, it is considered a spesific norm. Accordingly the spesific norm prevails over more general norm. This study examines the concept of apparent concurrence in the context of relations between special and general norms along with forms and implementation conditions of the lex specialis principle.