between Party A and Party C or that the alleged facts, as a personal affair that Party A is reluctant to divulge, include details that have a high possibility of being talked about by all, the possibility of propagation cannot be seen to be denied solely on the ground that Party C is a relative of Party A (the degree of relationship or the close relationship between Party A and Party C has not been specifically disclosed yet), but seeing that many and unspecified persons were in a state to be able to recognize as the criminal defendant declared loudly enough for other villagers to overhear the facts alleged in a public place with the intention of merely insulting or defaming Party A in the process of doing battle with Party A is reasonable, and thus the judgment of the lower court which convicted the criminal defendant of the facts charged to the same effect on the grounds that the publicity of the criminal defendant’s above remark is recognized is justifiable [Dissenting Opinion by Justice Kim Jae-hyung, Justice Ahn Chul-sang and Justice Kim Seon-soo] In the above case, the criminal defendant alleged facts regarding Party A while Party B, the husband of the criminal defendant, and Party C, a relative of Party A, were listening; as such, on the sole basis of the fact that the criminal defendant spoke to a small number of specified persons, many and unspecified persons cannot be seen to be in a state of being directly recognizable, and thus the criminal defendant’s act cannot be deemed to correspond to criminal defamation in that seeing that there is publicity in the criminal defendant’s remark is difficult; the facts charged presuppose that publicity can be recognized as the theory of propagation possibility is applied even though the other parties who heard the facts defaming Party A were just two persons, Party B and Party C; the other parties are in a special status relationship with either the criminal defendant or the victim as the fact that Party C is a relative of Party A was disclosed in the trial process; and all things considered, the above circumstances are all sufficiently convincing to deny publicity (propagation possibility in terms of the Majority Opinion). Thus, on the ground that reasonably irrefutable proof is required with respect to whether the criminal defendant’s remark has publicity despite such status relationship, on the premise that the criminal defendant’s remark has possibility to be propagated, and thus publicity is fulfilled although seeing that sufficient deliberations or proof regarding publicity has been made is difficult, the lower court, which convicted the criminal defendant of the facts charged, erred and adversely