1) The instant case was that the criminal defendant alleged facts regarding the victim while Nonindicted Party 2, the husband of the criminal defendant, and Nonindicted Party 3, the relative of the victim, were listening. As such, many and unspecified persons cannot be seen to be in a state to be able to recognize on the sole basis of the fact that the criminal defendant talked to a particular minority, and thus seeing that publicity exists in the criminal defendant’s remarks is difficult. Therefore, even if the criminal defendant spoke as stated in the facts charged, such act cannot be seen to correspond to criminal defamation against the victim. 2) The facts charged in this part rest in the premise that even though the other party who overheard the facts containing the contents defaming the victim’s reputation were two persons including Nonindicted Party 2, the husband of the criminal defendant, and Nonindicted Party 3, publicity can be recognized by applying the theory of propagation possibility, and the fact that Nonindicted Party 3 is a relative of the victim was revealed in the process of the trial. As such, the fact that the other party is in special relationship with the criminal defendant or the victim corresponds to special circumstances in which publicity (propagation possibility in terms of the Majority Opinion) can be denied, and thus proof for whether publicity exists in the criminal defendant’s remarks despite such status relationship is required to the extent where there is not reasonable doubt. However, the reasoning of the lower judgment merely perceives that the criminal defendant’s remarks have a possibility of propagation even when Nonindicted Party 3 is a relative of the victim, and even when the reasoning the lower judgment and the record are examined, seeing that sufficient deliberations or proof regarding publicity has been made is difficult. Moreover, whether other villagers overheard as the criminal defendant spoke aloud does not correspond to the contents of the facts charge in this part. The Majority Opinion admitted the aforementioned lower judgment as a circumstance where even any opportunity to exercise the right to defense was not given to the criminal defendant was revealed by the record, but whether this coheres with the purpose of the Majority Opinion, in which the theory of propagation possibility ought to be restrictively applied, is also problematic. 3) Ultimately, the lower court, which convicted the criminal defendant of the facts charged in this part on the premise that publicity was satisfied as the criminal defendant’s remarks had a possibility to be propagated, erred and adversely affected