“ANALISIS YURIDIS TERHADAP PUTUSAN PERKARA PIDANA PENIPUAN DITINJAU DARI SIFAT PERBUATAN MELAWAN HUKUM (NOMOR 909/Pid.B/2010/PN.JR)”
| Main Author: | Dermawan, Dermawan |
|---|---|
| Format: | Thesis NonPeerReviewed Book |
| Bahasa: | eng |
| Terbitan: |
, 2018
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: |
http://eprints.umm.ac.id/43006/1/PENDAHULUAN.pdf http://eprints.umm.ac.id/43006/2/BAB%20I.pdf http://eprints.umm.ac.id/43006/3/BAB%20II.pdf http://eprints.umm.ac.id/43006/4/BAB%20III.pdf http://eprints.umm.ac.id/43006/5/BAB%20IV.pdf http://eprints.umm.ac.id/43006/6/LAMPIRAN.pdf http://eprints.umm.ac.id/43006/ |
Daftar Isi:
- The aim of this study are to find out the judge consideration of a civil agreement which is it can be decided as criminal deception and the fulfillment of elements of criminal deception seen from the principal case. Those are unlawful act of judge’s judgment in prosecuting criminal act of deception grounded on number verdict: 909/Pid.B/2010/PN.Jr. This study is located in Jember district court by using normative legal research supported by field research. In this study are using primary and secondary data, for data collection technique are conducted through interview and literature study. Data analysis is used by way of qualitative analysis and described descriptively. Based on the research outcome, can be obtained two conclusions. Those are; first, judge’s consideration of a civil agreement can be obtained as a criminal deception in case number: 909/Pid.B/2010/PN.Jr that judge’s consideration is not in accordance with elements of criminal act of deception that violates article 378 of the criminal code of deception, also in bring down the criminal sanction toward the defendant. The judge’s panel does not pay attention clearly to the element of criminal act of deception. The judge’s panel only considers the element by using a series of deception because it is not utterance but deed or action. However, the judge’s panel should have dropped the statement of article 1320 of the civil code. Second, the judge’s panel is not careful in consideration of criminal deception but rather the unlawful nature of an act, in the verdict 909/Pid.B/2010/PN.Jr.