circumstances, the relevance to the public interest should not be limited to public figures, systems, policies, etc. Accordingly, details of the facts alleged can be seen to have public interest if they are matters related to communal life with the other general public even if they are matters related only to part of the general interest of society, and, by extension, in the case where they are related to the public interest and gain social attention even if they are matters regarding an individual, the application of Article 310 of the Criminal Act should not be excluded on the sole grounds that they do not concern the general interest of the state and society or particular social groups. Even in the case of a private person, the relevance to the public interest ought to be determined in consideration of the nature of social activities associated with said person and the influence that said person has on society. [Dissenting Opinion by Justice Kim Jae-hyung, Justice Ahn Chul-sang and Justice Kim Seon-soo] The Majority Opinion intends to maintain the theory of propagation possibility with regard to “publicity,” corresponding to constituent elements of criminal defamation. However, publicity as referred to in criminal defamation is a concept that cannot embrace propagation possibility. Publicity stipulated in Article 307(1) and (2) of the Criminal Act refers to a state that many and unspecified persons can directly recognize, and the requirements for publicity cannot be seen to be fulfilled even if there is possibility to be propagated to many and unspecified persons therefrom by revealing to a small number of specific individuals or minority. This cannot be accepted as the Majority Opinion violated the principles of legality and interpretation of criminal law as criminal punishment beyond the bounds intended by the Criminal Act by extensively applying the constituent elements of a crime. The Supreme Court decisions which admitted publicity on the grounds of the theory of propagation possibility ought to be changed. Specific reasons are as follows. (A) Recognizing publicity on the grounds that there is a possibility to be propagated corresponds to analogical interpretation which is prohibited by the principle of legality as extensive interpretation unfavorable to the criminal defendant beyond the ordinary acceptation of the text and language. The legislative purpose which regulates publicity as a constituent element of criminal defamation lies in punishing only when facts are revealed “socially” and “publicly” beyond private conversations or conveyance of information among acts of