and boundary of “the other party to an act,” and even though the contents including defamation is delivered to a small number of persons, a number of cases where such act per se leads to a state that many and unspecified persons can recognize occur. In particular, as for defamation through an information and communications network, as controllability of information revealed by the violator is easily lost, and the degree and scope of encroachment on the victim’s reputation resulting from fast communicability are broad, there are many cases where self-purification through an argument against and debate on expression is virtually meaningless. Therefore, considering the present method and modality of defamation, the distinct characteristics of an information and communications network ought to be also considered with respect to the interpretation of publicity. Supreme Court precedents have applied whether propagation possibility exists as the standard for determining publicity in cases of defamation therethrough in consideration of such distinct characteristics of an information and communications network as above. In other words, Supreme Court Decision 2009Do9396 decided November 12, 2009 accepted the judgment of the lower court, which recognized publicity on the grounds that there was a possibility of propagation in consideration of the background leading the criminal defendant to send an e-mail and its contents in the case where the criminal defendant sent an e-mail including false contents regarding the victim, who was his/her colleague, to his/her boss at the office, and Supreme Court Order 2019Do6916 dated July 5, 2019 accepted the judgment of the lower court which recognized publicity on the grounds it is fully expected that the other party can reveal the contents to many and unspecified persons when taking into account the conflict situation or the other party’s status in the case where the criminal defendant sent a text including misdeeds regarding the victim who ran for the position of officetel manager through Kakao Talk to supporters of another candidate who ran for the same position. Moreover, Supreme Court order 2019Do790 dated February 22, 2019 accepted the judgment of the lower court which recognized publicity in view of a considerable number of online followers on the other party’s Facebook and the contents alleged by the criminal defendant in the case where the criminal defendant alleged false facts concerning the victim through Facebook Messenger and Supreme Court Decision 2017Do20409 decided March 29, 2018 accepted the judgment of the lower court which denied publicity on the grounds that the conversations were nothing more than private conversations in light of the