background leading up to the conversations and the subsequent circumstances in the case where the criminal defendant sent a text including false facts regarding the victim through Kakao Talk to his/her acquaintance. Therefore, with respect to defamation through an information and communications network, if the legal doctrine that the other party ought to directly recognize or publicity cannot be satisfied on the sole basis of a small number of specified other parties is asserted, its function as a criterion for resolution becomes difficult. Rather, even in the case where facts were delivered to a specific minority, examining whether the general danger of infringing an individual’s social assessment arose based on whether the facts have possibility to be propagated to many and unspecified persons as a result thereof accords with practical judgment on publicity, and can be the specific standard for restricting the scope of publicity. Such meaning of publicity ought to be applied equally in the Special Act such as the Criminal Act, Information and Communications Network Act, etc. E. A new standard for determining justifications stipulated in Article 310 of the Criminal Act 1) The need for the expansion of justifications in accordance with the contents of the remarks As examined above, the theory of propagation possibility, which has been recognized by the precedents when determining publicity in criminal defamation, ought to be maintained. However, whether to punish depending on “the contents of the remarks” apart from the standard for determining publicity based on the modality of an act needs to be determined through tighter standards. Unlike legislative cases of foreign countries including Germany, etc., the Korean Criminal Act stipulates that a person who alleged facts is punished for criminal defamation even in the case where accurate facts were alleged, but the creation of healthy public opinion or the balanced development of democracy should not be obstructed by punishing even unbiased criticism on another. The U.N. Commission on Human Rights has recommended the decriminalization of defamation or the limited application thereof to the countries directly involved. Therefore, criminal punishment ought to be rejected if it constitutes unbiased criticism even in the case of corresponding to constituent elements of criminal defamation in