Publicity is a constituent element of criminal defamation, and the case where facts are revealed to a specific minority can be a probable circumstance in which publicity is denied, and thus strict prosecutorial proof is required with regard to the possibility of propagation (see e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Do2234, Feb. 14, 1997; 2004Do207, Apr. 14, 2006). Furthermore, the Supreme Court required not merely “possibility” but “probability” as the degree of proof regarding the possibility of propagation by ruling that “such act as transmitting information individually or privately to specified individuals or a few persons cannot be deemed to be public: Provided, that it can be seen to be public if there is a possibility to be propagated or disseminated to many and unspecified persons even if such act targets only specified individuals or a few persons” (see e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 81Do2491, Mar. 23, 1982; 89Do886, Jul. 11, 1989) (2) Awareness of propagation possibility and inward intention of admitting such risk The Supreme Court ruled that “where publicity of criminal defamation is recognized on the grounds of propagation possibility, willful negligence is required at least as an objective element of the constituent elements of a crime, and thus there ought to be inward intention admitting such risk as well as awareness of propagation possibility, and whether a person who committed an act admitted propagation possibility requires confirmation of the mental state of the person who committed the act in consideration of how the ordinary person assess such propagation possibility on the basis of specific circumstances, such as a type of act, situation, etc., which appear on the outside” (see e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Do340, Apr. 9, 2004), and stressed that care ought to be taken when recognizing the intention of the person who committed an act. According thereto, Supreme Court Decision 2018Do4200 decided June 15, 2018 denied the intention of defamation in a case where criminal defendant made remarks defaming another among the questions that the criminal defendant asked to grasp the truth of unsavory rumors and Supreme Court Decision 2016Do21547 decided January 30, 2020 determined that seeing that the criminal defendant was unaware of propagation possibility and had no intention of admitting such risk in light of the background leading up to, and the contents of, such remarks even if the other party of the facts alleged did not have any special relationship with the criminal defendant or the victims was difficult. Meanwhile, Supreme Court Decision 2000Do5711 decided April 10, 2001 accepted the judgment of the lower court which denied publicity in the