alleged facts, while there are cases where the facts were not disseminated even if the other party has no close relationships with the victim or the person who alleged facts. In the latter case, publicity is recognized as the sole basis of abstract and unclear standard such as an abstract relationship even though the risk that the facts including contents defaming a person’s reputation are in a state that many and unspecified persons can recognize is not caused and the unreasonable result that the former case is not punished on the grounds that no propagation possibility occurred. It is obvious that such interpretation is inconsistent with the purpose of criminal defamation which regulates publicity as a constituent element. For decades, finding a clear standard is still difficult although decisions regarding propagation possibility have accumulated, and there are many cases where a different judgment is made with regard to propagation possibility even in similar cases in terms of human relationships, etc. with the other party. Cases which affirmed propagation possibility include (1) the case where the other party of the alleged facts was a middle school classmate of the criminal defendant and the victim (Supreme Court Decision 2005Do329 decided Mar. 25, 2005), (2) the case where the other party was a person who administered the legal practices of the criminal defendant (Supreme Court Decision 2015Do9019 decided Jan. 14, 2016), and (3) the case where the other party was the colleague of the criminal defendant (Supreme Court Order 2017Do13231 decided Nov. 3, 2017). Of the cases which denied propagation possibility, (1) the other party was the fellow worker of the victim (Supreme Court Decision 98Do1949 decided Sept. 8, 1998) and (2) the other party was the friend of the victim (Supreme Court Decision 99Do4579 decided Feb. 11, 2000). In the affirmative and negative cases as above, whether there is propagation possibility on the sole basis of the fact that there is a definite close relationship with the victim cannot be definitively determined. Moreover, regarding whether the other party “actually disseminated” as an element to determine publicity has a problem in determining whether criminal defamation is constituted depending on accidental results such as propagation by the other party (The Majority Opinion viewed that whether the facts were actually disseminated ought to be considered on the sole basis of passive circumstances perhaps in consideration of criticism as such, but Supreme Court Decision 94Do1880 decided Sept. 30, 1994, etc. considered actual propagation of the facts as an active circumstance to recognize publicity). Although criminal defamation excluded private conversations with, or