The regulations related to criminal defamation require that a reputation be “publicly” or “openly” infringed, and “publicly” or “openly” herein lexically means “sufficiently transparent for the whole world to recognize the speaker” and “transparently without disguise or reserve.” Requiring publicity as the modality of an act is for an individual’s freedom of expression not to be excessively restricted by punishing only defamation which is socially detrimental as facts are circulated in society. The precedents of the Supreme Court have revealed that publicity means “in a condition that many and unspecified persons can recognize the speaker” as a constituent element of the criminal defamation, (see e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 92Do445, May 26, 1992; 96Do1007, Jul. 12, 1996; 2007Do8155, Feb. 14, 2008), which is the general view of the academic world. 2) Supreme Court precedents regarding publicity The Supreme Court has consistently determined that publicity with regard to criminal defamation is recognized when the other party thereof has possibility to propagate the alleged facts to many and unspecified persons even if the facts were alleged to a few persons individually, and thus the theory of propagation possibility has been settled as an established legal principle regarding publicity. In other words, Supreme Court Decision 68Do1569 decided December 24, 1968 first ruled that “if it is not the case where a secret is well guaranteed, and thus is not in danger of being externally propagated, even if facts were individually disseminated to one person, there is publicity insofar as the revealed facts have possibility to be propagated as the facts are consecutively distributed to several persons”; Supreme Court Decision 81Do1023 decided October 27, 1981 ruled that “if there is possibility of being propagated to many and unspecified persons therefrom even though facts were disseminated to only one person, the requirements for publicity are fulfilled, but if the case is reversed, the distribution of the facts to a specific person lacks publicity,” and the current Supreme Court Decision 2018Do4200 decided June 15, 2018 also maintained the foregoing legal principle. Such legal doctrine is applied equally to determination on publicity of defamation through an information and communications network under the Information and Communications Network Act or slanders against candidates under the Public Official Election Act (see e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do1007, July 12, 1996; 2007Do8155, Jan. 14, 2008), and thus has been applied as the basic legal doctrine of