A. Defendant C merely used forged credit cards with the co-defendants while recognizing that there was no conspiracy of forgery of a credit card with the co-defendants, and without accurately knowing the forged credit card. As such, Defendant C merely used forged credit cards with the co-defendants. Thus, the act of intent and implementation of a tide protection ought to be recognized.

B. The Defendants’ sentence (Defendant A, B: Imprisonment with prison labor and confiscation, Defendant C, and D: Imprisonment with prison labor for each of 1 year and 6 months) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. As to Defendant C’s assertion of misunderstanding of facts, there is a combination of intent to jointly process and realize a crime through two or more co-offenders who jointly process the facts. Although there is no process of the whole conspiracy, if there is a combination of intent to do so in order or impliedly, the conspiracy is established between several persons (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Do520, Aug. 30, 2012). In addition, in a case where there is no strict proof to acknowledge such conspiracy, if the Defendant denies the conspiracy, which is a subjective element of the crime, it is inevitable to prove it by the method of proving indirect facts or circumstantial facts that are relevant in light of the nature of things, and in this case, what constitutes indirect facts having considerable relevance, it is necessary to reasonably determine the connection of facts based on the close observation or analysis history based on normal empirical rule (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Do5271, Feb. 21, 2011).