ANALISIS YURIDIS PUTUSAN HAKIM DALAM PENERAPAN KETENTUAN PASAL PENYERTAAN PADA PERKARA TINDAK PIDANA KORUPSI (Studi Putusan Nomor 23/Pid.Sus-TPK/2018/PNSrg)

Abstract

In cases of criminal acts of corruption that occur it is not uncommon to involve articles of participation (deelneming), especially regarding participation (medepleger). This research is intended to analyze and obtain an overview of the requirements and to what extent a person's actions can be said to be a participating actor (medepleger) in corruption in Indonesia and to find out the judge's considerations in a corruption case in this case is court decision number 23/Pid .Sus-TPK/2018/PNSrg. This type of research is normative juridical research which is carried out by examining various types of formal legal provisions such as legislation, literature containing theoretical concepts which are then linked to the issues that are the subject of discussion and by using several approaches, namely the statutory approach. (statue approach), conceptual approach (conceptual approach) and case approach (case approach). In this study, an analysis was carried out using a qualitative method where this research was analyzed using a descriptive interpretation method. The results obtained from this study, namely the regulation regarding participation in article 55 paragraph (1) 1 of the Criminal Code are considered to be still good in its application because in practice there are still problems in determining the size of a person's actions to be declared as a participating actor or not. In decision number 23/Pid.Sus-TPK/2018/PNSrg the judge only outlined the chronology of the events the crime occurred so that he drew conclusions without paying attention to the role and capacity of the perpetrators. Mistakes related to the application of Article 55 paragraph (1) 1 of the Criminal Code in decision number 23/Pid.Sus-TPK/2018/PNSrg must be clearly proven so that the perpetrators can be held criminally responsible according to what was charged. However, in this decision the perpetrator did not fulfill the elements contained in article 55 paragraph (1) 1st of the Criminal Code but Article 56 of the Criminal Code.