Recently, the scope of indecent act by compulsion has widened significantly. Also, the citizens are increasingly aware that most cases of indecent assault are done by forcible compulsion so, there is no animosity towards the expansion of indecent act by compulsion. However, it is somewhat inappropriate to expand the role of indecent act by compulsion in our criminal law. Because, in our criminal justice system, it is not intended to punish anyone for abusing all sexual harassment, but it is designed to punish people for violating their sexual decision–making rights by mobilizing force. Of course, indecent acts are reprehensible. But, it is necessary to think again about trying to punish indecent acts in the area of indecent act by compulsion. That is why the responsibility of the criminal law can be damaged. In such a sense, I agree with the supreme court decision in conclude. However, there has been a growing social interest in recent sexual assault. And the demand for punishment for indecent assault is on the rise. Therefore, it is a great burden to insist on reducing the role of indecent act of compulsion in criminal law. This paper does not claim to be lenient on sexual assault by reducing the role of indecent act of compulsion. but, within the principle of criminal law, indecent act of compulsion in criminal law should be more rationally applied. Because, criminal punishment is not the master key to solve all crimes. Indecent act by blitz(sexual harrassment) should not be included in the concept of indecent act by compulsion. Thus, indecent act by blitz should be punishable by a separate crime as sexual harrassment. And indecent act by compulsion should just play its own role. as it were, indecent act by compulsion should play its planned role in principles of responsibility of criminal law.

In our criminal law system, rape and forcible sexual abuse are distinguished, and forcible sexual abuse and public obscenity are also different. Forcible sexual abuse is forcing undesired sexual behavior by one person upon another with force or threat. Nowadays, among some cases the meaning of force is interpreted willfully, so that even though one cannot see forcible sexual abuse, it seems to be the case. So it is advisable that the meaning of force is interpreted narrowly. There is no the offence of sexual abuse in public in our criminal law, but in special law(the Special Act of Sexual Assault) there is an offence of sexual abuse in public. But it is not good way to treat this problem, so it is advisable that the offence of sexual abuse without force should be introduced into the Criminal Act. In the Criminal Act even though sexual abuse and public obscenity is distinguished, the meaning of abuse similar to that of obscenity. To this a case said that the meaning of abuse is harm to one’s sexual determination, and obscenity is harm to public sexual morale.