| dc.description.abstract | The purpose of this research is to analyse the comparison of concept of criminal
attempt in Indonesian Penal Code, Draft of Indonesian Penal Code, and Indonesian
Corruption Law with such concept in South Korean Penal Code and also South Korean
Improper Solicitation and Graft Act. This research focuses on the philosophical and
comparative law perspective, to determine whether there are similarities and
differences between those concepts. This research uses normative methodology, by
analysing the laws in regards with the concept of criminal attempt in Indonesian and
South Korean legal system. This research is conducted using Constantinesco method to
describe such similarities and differences. The result of this research shows that there is
difference of rationale proposed by legal scholars to punish criminal attempt. The
rationale is based from the theories of Utilitarianist and Retributivist. The
Utilitarianists focus on the theory of deterrence function, while Retributivists focus on
the theory of retribution. The similarities between the concept of criminal attempt in
both Indonesian and South Korean Penal Code are that both Penal Codes do not punish
attempt of misdemeanor, and both require the element of intention to punish the
offender. As for the difference is that the mitigation for the punishment of criminal
attempt is regulated in a very detailed way in South Korean Penal Code, while
Indonesian Penal Code does not regulate the mitigation specifically. Then, the
advantage of the concept in Indonesian Penal Code is the stipulation of the element of
intention that gives legal certainty, while the disadvantage is that the stage of
preliminary conduct is not defined clearly. While in Draft of Indonesian Penal Code,
the element of intention is removed, but the stage of preliminary conduct is defined
clearly. As for the advantage of the concept in South Korean Penal Code is that the mitigation for the punishment of criminal attempt is regulated very specifically, but
there is no clear-cut definition on the commencement stage, causing an issue to
determine the starting point of the stage. Then, for the comparison of concept of
criminal attempt in Indonesian Corruption Law and SouthKorean Improper Solicitaion
and Graft Act, it is that while Indonesian Corruption Law regulates criminal attempt
clearly by the formulation of materiil delict, South Korean Corruption Law does not
even recognize about the crime of corruption, instead, they equalize it with the term of
bribery and graft, in which there is also no regulation regarding the matter of
attempting to commit bribery and graft.
Key words : mitigation for the punishment of criminal attempt is regulated very specifically, but
there is no clear-cut definition on the commencement stage, causing an issue to
determine the starting point of the stage. Then, for the comparison of concept of
criminal attempt in Indonesian Corruption Law and SouthKorean Improper Solicitaion
and Graft Act, it is that while Indonesian Corruption Law regulates criminal attempt
clearly by the formulation of materiil delict, South Korean Corruption Law does not
even recognize about the crime of corruption, instead, they equalize it with the term of
bribery and graft, in which there is also no regulation regarding the matter of
attempting to commit bribery and graft.
Key words : Criminal Attempt, Indonesian Penal Law, South Korean Penal Law,
Indonesian Corruption Law, South Korean Solicitaion and Graft Act, Comparative Law | en_US |
