The Supreme Court has consistently determined that publicity with regard to criminal defamation is recognized when the other party thereof has possibility to propagate the alleged facts to many and unspecified persons even if the facts were alleged to a few persons individually, and thus the theory of propagation possibility has been settled as an established legal principle regarding publicity. Such legal doctrine is applied equally to determination on publicity of defamation through an information and communications network under the Act on Promotion of Information and Communications Network Utilization and Information Protection, etc. (hereinafter “Information and Communications Network Act”) or defamation of candidates under the Public Official Election Act, and thus has been applied as the basic legal doctrine of the precedents of the Supreme Court regarding publicity of criminal defamation regardless of whether the revealed facts are false or correspond to defamation under the Special Act. The theory of propagation possibility regarding publicity, which has been developed by the Supreme Court over a long duration, is even now still reasonable in light of legal and practical aspects, and thus ought to be maintained. The Supreme Court precedents and trial affairs have strictly recognized publicity by applying the theory of propagation possibility on the premise that awareness of propagation possibility is required, categorizing the standards for determining on a case-by-case basis, including establishing specific and objective criteria for applying the theory of propagation possibility and strictly determining the criminal intent of the criminal defendant or denying the propagation possibility depending on the relationship between the other party of the facts alleged and the criminal defendant or the victim, considering that the freedom of expression can be discouraged as the requirements for publicity become meaningless and punishment is expanded where the theory of propagation possibility is applied without restriction. The rationale is as follows. (A) Publicity is a constituent element of criminal defamation, and the case where facts are revealed to a specific minority can be a probable circumstance in which publicity is denied, and thus strict prosecutorial proof is required with regard to the possibility of propagation. Furthermore, the Supreme Court required not merely “possibility” but “probability” as the degree of proof regarding the possibility of propagation by ruling that “such act as transmitting information individually or privately to specified individuals or a few persons cannot be deemed to be public: Provided, that