Authors:

Anna Maria Setia, Hery Firmansyah

Abstract:

“Tujuan penelitian ini untuk mengetahui bagaimana kewenangan seorang hakim dalam memutus tindak pidana dan apa dasar pertimbangan hakim sehingga terjadi disparitas putusan dalam tindak pidana penggelapan yang diatur pasal 374 KUHP. Metode yang digunakan adalah metode normatif dengan melakukan pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus yang dianalisis menggunakan teknik studi kepustakaan atau mempelajari bahan-bahan hukum maupun non hukum. Dalam tindak pidana penggelapan yang diatur Pasal 274 KUHP hakim mempunyai kewenangan untuk memeriksa alat bukti, keterangan saksi, dan keterangan terdakwa dan dalam memutus tindak pidana penggelapan yang diatur pasal 374 KUHP hakim mempunyai pertimbangan sehingga terdapat perbedaan penjatuhan hukuman dalam dua putusan yang berbeda namun perkara yang sama yaitu penggelapan dalam jabatan. Hakim menjatuhkan pidana penjara yang berbeda disebabkan pada putusan nomor 19/Pid.b/2021/Pn kka tidak diterangkan secara detail berapa kerugian yang dialami perusahaan sehingga terpidana dijatuhkan pidana penjara selama 20 hari dan pada putusan nomor 25/Pid.b/2020/Pn kka kerugian yang dialami perusahaan mencapai Rp 112.429.322,- sehingga hakim menjatuhkan pidana penjara terhadap terpidana selama 2 tahun. The purpose of this study is to find out how the authority of a judge in deciding a crime and what is the basis for the judge’s consideration so that there is a disparity in decisions in the crime of embezzlement regulated in Article 374 of the Criminal Code. The method used is a normative method by taking a statutory-law approach and a case approach which is analyzed using literature study techniques or studying legal and non-legal materials. In the crime of embezzlement regulated in Article 274 of the Criminal Code the judge has the authority to examine evidence, witness statements, and statements of involvement and in deciding the crime of embezzlement regulated in Article 374 of the Criminal Code the judge has consideration so that there are differences in sentencing in two different decisions but the case the same as embezzlement in office. The judge imposed a different prison sentence due to the decision number 19/Pid.b/2021/Pn kka it was not explained in detail how much the company suffered so that the convict was released from prison for 20 days and in decision number 25/Pid.b/2020/Pn the loss of kka experienced by the company reached Rp. 112,429,322, - so that the judge sentenced the convict to 2 years in prison.”

Keywords

Keyword Not Available

Downloads:

Download data is not yet available.

References

References Not Available

PDF:

https://jurnal.harianregional.com/kerthasemaya/full-95555

Published

2023-01-06

How To Cite

SETIA, Anna Maria; FIRMANSYAH, Hery. DISPARITAS PUTUSAN HAKIM DALAM KASUS PENGGELAPAN YANG DIATUR PASAL 374 KUHP.Kertha Semaya : Journal Ilmu Hukum, [S.l.], v. 11, n. 1, p. 218-228, jan. 2023. ISSN 2303-0569. Available at: https://jurnal.harianregional.com/kerthasemaya/id-95555. Date accessed: 08 Jul. 2024. doi:https://doi.org/10.24843/KS.2022.v11.i01.p20.

Citation Format

ABNT, APA, BibTeX, CBE, EndNote - EndNote format (Macintosh & Windows), MLA, ProCite - RIS format (Macintosh & Windows), RefWorks, Reference Manager - RIS format (Windows only), Turabian

Issue

Vol 11 No 1 (2022)

Section

Articles

Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License