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. (F) 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. (G) The Information and Communications Network Act requires an act of alleging fact to be public even if an information and communications network is used, and thus the concept of publicity thereof is the same as that of criminal defamation. If facts were revealed only to a small number of specified persons even if an information and communications network is used, it cannot be still deemed that publicity exists, and such act is not subject to the regulation of criminal defamation under the Criminal Act or Information and Communications Network Act. In other words, alleging facts to one friend through a message by an information and communications network such as email or SNS and writing a letter or speaking face to face are the same as revealing facts to a small number of specified persons in terms of the modality of an act, and the general risk of infringement of reputation cannot be seen to be caused on the grounds that an information and communications network was used. The matter that the degree of damage and scope of defamation are widened as information is easily stored infinitely and reproduced with the advancement of the Internet and scientific technology ought to be resolved through reflection in the examination of an offense or aggravated punishment by the Information and Communications Network Act and the concept of publicity does not have to be changed on the grounds thereof.