not disseminated to anyone. In this regard, the Majority Opinion claims responsibility for the result thereof apart from the assessment of the criminal defendant’s act according to the other party’s intention and whether the facts were propagated. This is a problem caused by including an act, which is not subject to punishment of criminal defamation, in the requirements for publicity from the outset. As with the Majority Opinion, an endeavor to limit the culpability scope by objectively determining the propagation possibility or demanding recognition for propagation possibility cannot be a fundamental solution. Moreover, viewing that publicity exists if there is a possibility of propagation even in the case of private conversations with, or the conveyance of information to, a small number of specified persons, means viewing that almost all acts of alleging facts, in principle, correspond to the constituent elements of the criminal defamation, which is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity of the Criminal Act. From the perspective mentioned above, imposing punishment for a private and personal act of alleging facts naturally occurring in everyday life becomes possible. Thus, in that the interpretation as above criminalizes even the stage before the danger of defaming an individual’s reputation due to an act of alleging facts to many and unspecified persons occurs, criminal defamation, corresponding to abstract endangerment offences, becomes more abstract. G. There is a high possibility that one’s own will is involved in specific application as establishing an objective standard for determining whether propagation possibility exists is difficult. In the same manner, setting an objective standard on whether propagation is possible is also difficult in any case if propagation possibility is determined based on the relationship among a person who alleged facts, the other party, and the victim. As objectifying whether propagation is impossible when a person who committed such act and the victim thereof are in a close relationship to any extent is difficult, and proving or determining it where facts were revealed to colleagues or friends is not easy, the risk that propagation possibility may be embraced in the direction that “there is a possibility of propagation at least” without concrete proof becomes even greater. There are cases where the other party disseminated facts to many and unspecified persons (presupposing where how the facts were propagated is not disclosed) even if the other party is seen to have close relationships with the victim or the person who