(C) The meaning of publicity as referred to in various crimes, whose constituent element is publicity, in the Criminal Act, etc. ought to be equally interpreted. This also accords with the legislative purpose of each regulation and systematic construction of criminal law. Unlike public indecency (Article 245) or distribution, etc. of obscene pictures (Article 243), including propagation possibility in the concept of publicity in criminal defamation undermines uniform interpretation of the Criminal Act, and thus criticism that it lacks coherence as to publicity cannot be avoided. (D) Determining publicity based on whether the other party of the alleged facts has possibility of disseminating the facts is to make a person who committed such act assume legal responsibility for the result thereof by infringing the possibility of foresight of a person who ought to follow the order of law, which contradicts the evaluation method of criminal law. Eventually, determining the constitution of criminal defamation depending on whether the other party who listened to defamatory facts may distribute the facts alleged by the person who committed such act to another person in the future can be deemed to hold the person who committed such act responsible for the result thereof by citing accidental circumstances that should not be considered when determining whether an act is illegal. (E) Determining publicity based on propagation possibility leads to excessive expansion of the culpability scope of criminal defamation and is contrary to the principle of subsidiarity of the Criminal Act. Taking into account propagation possibility when determining publicity is to confuse both the benefit and protection of the law in criminal defamation, which is abstract endangerment offenses established on the sole basis of the risk of being infringed even if the reputation is not externally infringed in reality, and the modality of an act by substituting propagation possibility for publicity required as the modality of an act of criminal defamation. Viewing the criminal defamation as abstract endangerment offenses is to punish where a person’s reputation is in danger of being infringed by the facts publicly alleged, not even where the alleged facts are at risk for becoming public. This is because the legal basis of punishment of criminal defamation lies with the danger that facts can be constantly disseminated, i.e., not the danger of defamation resulting from propagation by another person but the danger of defamation caused by publicly alleging facts.