the person who disclosed such facts propagated such facts to many and unspecified persons, the person who disseminated the facts, the other party thereof, not the person who disclosed the facts first is considered as a person who defames another. The fundamental resolution method of criminal law is to solve on the basis of the legal doctrine that the other party becomes the principal offender of criminal defamation, and the person who disclosed the facts first becomes an instigator or a person who aids and abets the commission of the crime if a person who disclosed the facts first certainly had the intention of disseminating such facts through the other party. In other words, a way of punishing a doer who intended to use it upon consideration of the other party’s propagation possibility ought to be not the concept of propagation possibility but the legal principle of accomplice If a person who first disclosed facts alleged such facts including the contents defaming another to a particular minority, the person who first disclosed facts does not correspond to the case of “publicly” alleging facts even if the person who actually disseminated such facts cannot be found, and thus such person cannot be punished merely for criminal defamation, and it cannot be seen that there is a vacuum in punishment even in such a case. Therefore, viewing that propagation possibility is included in publicity to prevent such vacuum in punishment is to misunderstand the legislative purpose that regulates publicity as a constituent element. Eventually, determining the constitution of criminal defamation depending on whether the other party who listened to the defamatory facts may distribute the facts alleged by the person who committed such act to another person in the future can be deemed to hold the person who committed such act responsible for the result thereof by citing accidental circumstances that should not be considered when determining whether an act is illegal. F. Determining publicity based on propagation possibility leads to excessive expansion of the culpability scope of criminal defamation and is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity of the Criminal Act. According to the text and language of Article 307(1) of the Criminal Act, criminal defamation is not constituted on the sole grounds of alleging facts regarding the victim, but constituted only when publicity is satisfied and the victim’s reputation has been defamed. In the case where criminal defamation is seen as an abstract endangerment offence as with the Majority Opinion, the modality of an act becomes an important