aversive contents are distributed through information and communications networks, etc. Nevertheless, ex ante or ex post relief measures to protect the personality rights infringed in our society remains deficient or insufficient. The legislative purpose viewing criminal defamation based on an act of alleging facts as subject to punishment in the Criminal Act, etc. of our country lies therewith, and still plays an important role as a behavioral regulation amongst the general public. The reason why the Majority Opinion intends to maintain the theory of propagation possibility is to protect the personality rights and privacy of personal life of an individual which are guaranteed as the basic rights under the Constitution of the Republic of Korea in consideration of the current modalities of defamation and the legislative purpose of criminal defamation. If criminal defamation based on an act of alleging facts commences from the premise of simply defining it as restricting the freedom of expression by intentionally punishing private conversations or information transfer, realizing a balance among conflicting interests would be difficult. 2) The Dissenting Opinion argues that the theory of propagation possibility makes a person who committed an act assume legal responsibility for the result thereof depending on whether the other party disseminated the facts, but this arises from a misconception of the Majority Opinion and the theory of propagation possibility. As seen in 1. (d) of the Majority Opinion, it is not an opinion determining publicity depending on whether the other party actually disseminated facts to many and unspecified persons. If general danger as a result thereof is caused after objectively and normatively determining an act of putting another in danger of being defamed by alleging facts which can defame another’s reputation to the other party who has a possibility to disseminate to many and unspecified persons, this is to recognize the illegality of such act per se, which is distinguishable from assuming legal responsibility for the result. Moreover, the ambiguous concern over the dissemination asserted by the Dissenting Opinion can be deemed as simply failing to fully comprehend the Majority Opinion which determines whether propagation is possible based on objective standards, requires a high degree of probability, and needs strict proof regarding a doer’s recognition of propagation possibility and the intention of accepting such danger. Meanwhile, the Dissenting Opinion criticized as if the precedents of the Supreme Court, which determined differently with regard to publicity even though the other party