subject to the criminal defamation sanctions. Article 70 of the Information and Communications Network Act which punishes an act of defaming another through an information and communications network clarified more the meaning of publicity by using the term “purposely” instead of the expression “publicly.” No matter how broadly the meaning of the term “publicly” or “purposely” is interpreted, telling a small number of friends, colleagues, etc. in private cannot be deemed as remarks made “sufficiently transparent for the whole world to recognize the speaker” or “transparently without disguise or reserve.” If such act per se is not to “publicly” allege facts even if facts were consequentially revealed to many and unspecified persons as a result of such act as above, a person who committed such act cannot be punished for criminal defamation. The cases where publicity is recognized on the grounds of propagation possibility in the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court include considerable number of conversations held in private relationships with friends, colleagues, etc. as above. Publicity is also recognized based on propagation possibility even with respect to secret conversations had after being promised confidentiality from the other party. Supreme Court Decision 68Do1569 decided December 24, 1968, in which the theory of propagation possibility appeared for the first time, concerned a case where the criminal defendant talked to a person who lived in the same town in his/her house. Supreme Court Decision 85Do431 decided April 23, 1985 concerned a case where the criminal defendant confirmed a rumor about the victim to a married couple who joined the same church, and Supreme Court Decision 2005Do329 decided March 25, 2005 concerned a case where the criminal defendant uttered false allegations about the victim to his/her school fellows. Supreme Court Order 2017Do13231 dated November 3, 2017 concerned a case where the criminal defendant talked about the victim behind his/her back to one colleague in the restroom. The above decisions recognized publicity on the grounds that there was a possibility of propagation. Supreme Court Decision 2007Do8155 decided February 14, 2008 concerned a case involving one-onone secret conversations held in a private chat room on an individual blog, and Supreme Court Decision 2016Do4699 decided August 29, 2016 concerned a case where the criminal defendant abused the victim in a Kakao Talk chart room after agreeing to keep a secret with four club members, in relation to both of which publicity was recognized on the grounds of propagation possibility.