Public indecency stipulated in Article 245 of the Criminal Act also regards publicity as a constituent element by punishing “a person who publicly commits an obscene act,” and the Supreme Court interprets publicity of the above crime as a state where many and unspecified persons can recognize (see e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4372, Dec. 22, 2000). Public indecency is constituted only in a case where a person committed an obscene act in a condition that many and unspecified persons can directly recognize the speaker, and thus publicity of the above crime cannot be interpreted as propagation possibility. Supreme Court Decision 2000Do4372 decided December 22, 2000 supported the judgment of the lower court which determined that “if people were the least likely to use it despite an apartment elevator, it cannot be deemed as a state where many and unspecified persons can recognize an obscene act, and thus publicity cannot be admitted.” The Supreme Court regards publicity of public indecency distinguishably from that of criminal defamation. The crimes as mentioned above commonly require publicity as a constituent element even though benefit and protection of the law correspond to social legal interests. The reason lies in punishing only in the case where there is a risk of causing harm to another person or infringing the benefit and protection of the law as an individual act infringing the benefit and protection of the law in each crime is directly disseminated or exposed to society. This is the same as the legislative purpose of criminal defamation which regards publicity as a constituent element. 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. E. 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.