Disparitas Putusan Hakim Terhadap Tindak Pidana Manipulasi Dokumen Elektronik (Studi Putusan Nomor 42/Pid.Sus./2013/PN.Smg. jo. Putusan Nomor 338/Pid/2013/PT.Smg jo. Putusan Nomor 116 K/Pid.Sus/2015)
| Main Author: | Mahardhika, Aditya Yogaswara |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article eJournal |
| Bahasa: | ind |
| Terbitan: |
Kumpulan Jurnal Mahasiswa Fakultas Hukum
, 2019
|
| Online Access: |
http://hukum.studentjournal.ub.ac.id/index.php/hukum/article/view/3306 |
Daftar Isi:
- Aditya Yogaswara Mahardhika, Alfons Zakaria, S.H., LL.M., Ardi Ferdian, S.H., M.Kn. Fakultas Hukum, Universitas Brawijaya xadityayogaplox@gmail.com ABSTRAK Pada penelitian ini, penulis mengangkat permasalahan disparitas terhadap tindak pidana manipulasi dokumen elektronik yang terjadi antara Putusan Nomor 42/Pid.Sus./2013/PN.Smg. jo. Putusan Nomor 338/Pid/2013/PT.Smg jo. Putusan Nomor 116 K/Pid.Sus/2015, hal ini terjadi karena adanya perbedaan pertimbangan hakim antara Hakim Pengadilan Negeri Semarang dan Hakim Mahkamah Agung yang berpendapat bahwa perbuatan Terdawa Handojo bin Achmadi Harsono telah Termasuk dalam Ranah Hukum Pidana dimana telah memenuhi unsur-unsur yang disebutkan dalam Pasal 35 jo. 51 ayat (1) Undang-Undang Nomor 11 tahun 2008 dengan Hakim Pengadilan Tinggi Semarang berpendapat dengan adanya Surat Perjanjian Kerjasama perbuatan Terdakwa merupakan Wanprestasi yang termasuk dalam Ranah Hukum Perdata. Hal ini menyebabkan perbedaan yang siginifikan antara Putusan Nomor 42/Pid.Sus./2013/PN.Smg. dan Putusan Nomor 116 K/Pid.Sus/2015 menyatakan Terdakwa bersalah dan dipidana penjara selama 5 (lima) tahun dan denda Rp. 100.000.00,- (seratus juta rupiah) subsidiair 6 (enam) bulan kurungan dengan Putusan Nomor 338/Pid/2013/PT.Smg yang menyatakan Terdakwa Handojo bin Achmadi Harsono lepas dari segala tuntutan hukum. Penulis menggunakan metode yuridis-normatif dengan metode pendekatan perundang-undangan dan pendekatan kasus, peneliti menganalisis jenis data primer dan sekunder menggunakan teknik analisis yuridis-normatif dengan mempelajari peraturan perundang-undangan, putusan pengadilan terkait, literatur atau buku-buku ilmu hukum, jurnal, skripsi, yang menjadi rujukan peneliti untuk melakukan penyelesaian masalah hukum. Kata Kunci: Disparitas, Pertimbangan Hakim ABSTRACT This research studies disparity concerning electronic document manipulation according to Decision Number 42/Pid.Sus./2013/PN.Smg. jo. Decision Number 338/Pid/2013/PT.Smg jo. Decision Number 116 K/Pid.Sus/2015. The disparity embarked from the ruling delivered by the Judge of District Court in Semarang and the Judge of Supreme court suggesting that the act committed by Handojo bin Achmadi Harsono as a defendant was categorised as a criminal case since it was relevant to the provisions in Article 35 jo. 51 Paragraph (1) of Act Number 11 of 2008 in comparison to the ruling delivered by the Judge of District Court in Semarang suggesting that the case was seen as a breach of contract since there was partnership agreement for the parties involved. There was significant implication caused by this difference of the two Decisions, causing the defendant to serve his five-year jail sentence and he was required to pay IDR. 100,000,000.00 fine or six-month jail sentence when the fine is not paid based on Decision Number 42/Pid.Sus./2013/PN.Smg. dan Decision Number 116 K/Pid.Sus/2015, while the defendant was declared free from all charges based on the Decision Number 338/Pid/2013/PT.Smg. This is a normative-juridical research that employed statute and case approaches, where primary and secondary data was analysed with normative-juridical method by observing Legislations, related ruling, literature, books on legal studies, journals, and theses, all of which served as references for the research. Keywords: disparity, judges’ consideration