2) The Dissenting Opinion argues that the Majority Opinion resolves the problem, which ought to be solved by complicity theory, instead through the theory of propagation possibility. However, criminal defamation is consummated when reaching the stage where the general risk of defaming another’s reputation can arise. Thus, if a person alleged facts individually to a small number of persons who have possibility to propagate such facts to many or unspecified persons, as such act is consummated at that stage and such crime is completed, there is no room for the constitution of an accomplice, and thus this cannot be deemed as a matter of accomplice. Moreover, if it is a case where the first propagator’s intention of instigating another (intention of causing a principal to have a resolution on a crime and committing such crime through the principal) cannot be admitted, even though the first propagator has committed the greatest illegality, the act becomes unpunishable. 3) The Dissenting Opinion argues as if the theory of propagation possibility thwarts the current Me Too movement, but this is an issue irrelevant to the interpretation of publicity. This is because the regulations regarding the Me Too movement are merely a matter of whether an act in which a victim of a crime lets many persons including the press, etc. know the fact that he/she was damaged is punishable and the Me Too movement cannot be seen to be punished due to the theory of propagation possibility. This is a matter caused by the penalty for criminal defamation based on the facts alleged in the Criminal Act, etc. On the basis of such critical mind, the precedents of the Supreme Court, as seen in the Majority Opinion, have denied the intention and publicity of defamation in a case concerning remarks related to public proceedings such as the response to, and investigation of, a harmful act and the Majority Opinion, further, views that justifications ought to be recognized by broadly applying Article 310 of the Criminal Act if the facts are solely for the public interest and attract social attention or have an effect on society even if they are matters concerning an individual. According to the Majority Opinion, it cannot be rather a solution to protect a victim of a crime as justifications prescribed in Article 310 of the Criminal Act are recognized even in the case of revealing such facts to the majority of the public as well as the case where a victim of a crime, as with the Me Too movement, reveals the facts of the crime to a few close friends.