abstract endangerment offense is that defamation has distinct characteristics such as opposition value of the act and opposition value of the result. In other words, this is because an encroachment on reputation, which is the benefit and protection of the law in criminal defamation, cannot be objectively confirmed and proven. Therefore, even if many and unspecified persons did not actually recognize the alleged fact, reputation ought to be seen to be defamed on the sole basis of the fact that they were in such a state, and this cannot be deemed as either an impossible or attempted crime. The above interpretation regarding publicity refers to the aspects of possibility that many and unspecified persons can recognize the speaker, corresponds to the one that is allowed by the principle of legality, and such act needs to be criminally punished. Criminal defamation as an abstract endangerment offences has an intention of protecting the social evaluation of an individual’s reputation regardless of the truth thereof, and the alleged facts ought to be concrete to the extent of intruding into the social evaluation of a specific person (see e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Do1770, Oct. 25, 1994; 98Do2188, Feb. 25, 2000), but being in danger of causing an infringement as above is sufficient and the result of the infringement is not required, and thus the case where many and unspecified persons entered into a state of being able to recognize as a result thereof even if facts are alleged to a small number of persons as well as the case where facts are revealed to majority of persons can be interpreted as publicly alleging facts. The Korean Criminal Act is distinguishable from the German Criminal Code, which views publicity of criminal defamation as an aggravated requirement of punishment, in that it stipulates publicity as a constituent element, and thus its construction ought to be also made in accordance with the system of the Korean Criminal Act. Furthermore, excessively narrowing interpretation of the requirements for publicity contrary to what is specified in the law on the grounds of foreign legislation cases can induce the result of neglecting an individual’s personal rights for freedom of expression. In particular, with the development of the Internet and various information and communication technologies, information or privacy concerning an individual is easily exposed and given that in reality cases where self-determination on personal information is lost frequently occur, the area related to the confidentiality of personal privacy ought to be strictly protected and should not be allowed to be violated on the grounds of freedom of expression. An individual’s personal rights, the protection of privacy, and freedom