Putusan Bebas Pengadilan Negeri Gunung Sitoli Nomor: 119/PID.B/2019/PN.GST Tanggal 11 Mei 2022 terhadap Terdakwa Yang Melanggar Pasal 374 KUHP

  • Dona Martinus Sebayang Universitas Sumatera Utara
  • Mahmud Mulyadi Universitas Sumatera Utara
  • Syarifah Lisa Andriati Universitas Sumatera Utara
Keywords: acquittal, embezzlement in employment relations, criminal liability

Abstract

The problem in this study is how criminal responsibility and proof for embezzlement in employment relations in Decision Number 119 / Pid.B / 2019 / PN Gst, what is the role and function of Judges in the law. The results showed: The criminal liability of perpetrators of embezzlement in employment relations in Decision Number 119/Pid.B/2019/PN Gst, if you look at Article 374 of the Criminal Code as demanded by the Public Prosecutor is a threat through a maximum sentence of 5 years.   The role of the Judge in law through his decision is based on Article 1 paragraph (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure which states that the Judge is a state judicial official authorized by law to prosecute.  The legal analysis of the decision of the Gunung Sitoli District Court Judge who decided to acquit the defendant Agustina Ndraha in Decision Number 119/Pid.B/2019/PN Gst was considered inappropriate, because the free verdict decided by the Panel of Judges regarding the embezzlement case in employment relations submitted by the Public Prosecutor on the basis that the Judge did not apply the law properly, namely in legal considerations on incriminating matters and mitigating the Defendant regarding the conviction of the Defendant.

References

Ali, Z. (2010). Metode Penelitian Hukum. Sinar Grafika.

Chalzalwi, ALdalm. (2003). Kejalhaltaln Terhaldalp Halrtal Bendal. Balyumedial.

Harahap, M. Y. (1985). Pembahasan Permalsalahan Penerapan KUHAP. Pustaka Kartini.

Heryawan, M. K. (2019). Upaya Pembuktian Penuntut Umum Terhadap Perdagangan Merek Palsu “Cardinal.” Verstek, 7(2), Article 2. https://doi.org/10.20961/jv.v7i2.34299

Indonesia, P. P. (2023). Undang-undang (UU) Nomor 1 Tahun 2023 tentang Kitab Undang-Undang Hukum Pidana. Database Peraturan | JDIH BPK. http://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/234935/uu-no-1-tahun-2023

Indonesia, Pemerintah Pusat. (2009). Undang-undang (UU) Nomor 48 Tahun 2009 tentang Kekuasaan Kehakiman. Database Peraturan | JDIH BPK. http://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/38793/uu-no-48-tahun-2009

Laowo, Y. S. (2018). Jurnal Hukum Analisis Yuridis Putusan Bebas Dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi. Jurnal Education And Development, 4(1), 86–86. https://doi.org/10.37081/ed.v4i1.281

Mulyadi, L. (2010). Putusan Hakim dalam Hukum Acara Pidana: Teori, Praktik, Teknik Penyusunan dan Permasalahannya. Citra Aditya Bakti.

Prakoso, D. (1985). Hukum Penitensier di Indonesia. Liberty.

Septialnal, S. (2023, July 3). Wawancara dengan Jaksal di Pengadilan Negeri Padang Lawas Utara [Tatap Muka Langsung].

Sirait, O. (2023). Tindak Pidana Penggelapan Akibat Wanprestasi Tidak Melakuan Pembayaran Kepada Perusahaan Pt. Agung Bumi Lestari (Studi Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Tebing Tinggi No. 74/Pid.B/2019/PN.Tbt tertanggal 28 Mei 2019). Jurnal Smart Hukum (JSH), 1(2), 301–312. https://doi.org/10.55299/jsh.v1i2.268

Soekanto, S., & Mamudji, S. (2012). Penelitian Hukum Normatif. PT Raja Grafindo Persada.

Undang-Undang (UU) Nomor 8 Tahun 1981 Tentang Hukum Acara Pidana (KUHAP) (1981). https://peraturan.bpk.go.id/Details/47041/uu-no-8-tahun-1981

UTOMO, D. K. (2021). Pertanggungjawaban Pidana Pelaku Tindak Penggelapan Yang Didahului Hubungan Hukum Keperdataan ( Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Surabaya No. 1965/Pid.B/ 2020/PN.SBY ) [Skripsi, UNIVERSITAS BHAYANGKARA SURABAYA]. http://eprints.ubhara.ac.id/2165/

Published
2025-06-16