2. Bodily injuries inflicted upon Nonindicted Party 5, etc., who were other victims, and assaults on Nonindicted Party 6 On the ground same as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court upheld the judgment of the first instance court which convicted the criminal defendant of each fact charged in relation to this part. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the related legal doctrine and the evidence duly adopted by the lower court, the lower court did not err and adversely affect the conclusion of the judgment by either exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence consistent with logical and empirical rules or misapprehending the legal principle regarding an expression that the victim does not want the offender to be punished as referred to in an offence unpunishable over objection. 3. Conclusion Therefore, the final appeal is dismissed and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices except: a Dissenting Opinion by Justice Kim Jae-hyung, Justice Ahn Chul-sang and Justice Kim Seon-soo and an Opinion concurring with the Majority Opinion by Justice Park Sang-ok and Justice Min Yousook 4. 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.