depreciating personal value assessment. Punishing only those cases where facts that may infringe another person’s reputation is disseminated in society can be deemed as a legislative prerogative, which narrows the scope in which criminal defamation may be constituted, thereby performing a function that guarantees the freedom of expression as widely as possible under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The term “propagation possibility” means that such result has not occurred in reality but has potential for future dissemination. Viewing the assumption that there is “possibility” of being propagated in the future in a situation that such consequence does not occur as the ground of punishment is contrary to the principle of legality. Circumstances remain unchanged even when possibility changes to probability. Recognizing publicity merely on the sole basis of propagation possibility means that an act of defaming another person’s reputation - an act that there is a risk of being defamed according to the Majority Opinion, which views defamation as endangerment offences - is subject to punishment on the grounds that there is a “possibility” of becoming public through propagation even in the case where it is not “publicly” done. Such interpretation corresponds to unjust extensive and analogical interpretation, which should not be allowed as it constitutes interpretation obviously unfavorable to the criminal defendant. (B) The Criminal Act prescribes that “an act of publicly alleging facts or false facts” shall be punished. The constitution of criminal defamation ought to be determined based not on whether there is propagation possibility of the alleged facts but rather whether an act of revealing facts per se has publicity. In such a case, publicity, through the analysis of the nature and modality of the act, ought to be determined in consideration of whether the act was revealed to many and unspecified persons, whether many and unspecified persons recognized or could have recognized the facts as an act of alleging facts was done in a public place, etc., and whether the revealed facts can be seen to be disseminated socially and publicly. The theory of propagation possibility is contrary to the principle of legality as it results in the creation of a new constituent element referred to as propagation possibility in addition to publicity, which is a constituent element of criminal defamation. Furthermore, the theory of propagation possibility impedes a function as a conduct regulation of criminal defamation by confounding the principle of clarity and leads a person applying the law to arbitrarily administer criminal laws and ordinances.