A) The criminal defendant and the victim, as neighbors, are in an adversarial relationship due to various issues and the criminal defendant made remarks stated in the facts charged in the process of arguing with the victim on the back street of the victim’s house, on the day when this case occurred. B) When Nonindicted Party 2, husband of the criminal defendant, and Nonindicted Party 4, wife of the victim, overheard criminal defendant and victim arguing in a loud voice, they exited their respective residences, and the victim and Nonindicted Party 4 consistently stated to the effect that “the criminal defendant loudly spoke that the victim was an ex-convict and villagers as well as Nonindicted Party 3 heard it.” C) The criminal defendant declared aloud that “the victim was a vicious ex-convict” several times even in front of a police officer who was dispatched after receiving a report several times. D) Even though the place in which Party A lives is a clan village with the same surname as the victim and Nonindicted Party 3 and the victim has a previous conviction, Nonindicted Party 3 is not seen to be in a close relationship with the victim as Nonindicted Party 3 “heard the fact that the victim was an ex-convict for the first time from the criminal defendant.” 2) Examining the factual basis in light of the legal principle as seen earlier, considering the degree of acquaintance between the victim and Nonindicted Party 3 or that the alleged facts, as personal affairs that the victim is reluctant to divulge, include contents which have a high possibility of being talked about by all, the possibility of propagation cannot be seen to be denied on the sole ground that Nonindicted Party 3 is a relative of the victim (the degree of relationship or the close relationship between the victim and Nonindicted Party 3 has not yet been specifically disclosed), but seeing that many and unspecified persons were in a state to be able to recognize the speaker as the criminal defendant declared sufficiently loudly for other villagers to overhear the facts alleged in a public place with the intention of merely insulting or defaming the victim in the process of doing battle with the victim is reasonable, and thus the publicity of the criminal defendant’s remarks stated in the fact charged is recognized. The lower court to the same effect, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal, did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the publicity of criminal defamation