| dc.description.abstract | This research aims to analyze the basis of the judge's considerations in handing down
Decision No.454/Pid.B/2024/PN. Sby, is the decision in accordance with statutory
regulations or based on Article 184 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding evidence or
is it the opposite? The problem studied in this research is regarding the considerations of
the PN panel of judges. Surabaya in decision no. 454/Pid.B/2024/PN. Sby dated July 22
2024, which acquitted the defendant Greorius Ronald Tannur who was charged with a
combination of Article 338 of the Criminal Code or Article 351 paragraph (3) of the
Criminal Code or Article 359 of the Criminal Code and Article 351 paragraph (1) of the
Criminal Code and the efforts that can be taken as a party who feels aggrieved by the
acquittal decision No. 454/Pid.B/2024/PN. Sby dated July 22 2024 which acquitted the
defendant Greorius Ronald Tannur. This research is based on the provisions of the Criminal
Code, Law Number 8 of 1981 Criminal Procedure Law, Law Number 48 of 2009
concerning Judicial Power and other regulations related to the main problem of this
research. This research uses normative juridical methods. As a result of the research carried
out by the author, it can be concluded that the defendant was proven guilty based on Article
351 paragraph (3) as in the second alternative indictment. The legal remedy proposed by
the Public Prosecutor is cassation, even though Article 244 of the Criminal Procedure Code
states that a decision of acquittal or release from all legal charges cannot be appealed for in
cassation, but in practice it is possible for the Public Prosecutor to submit a cassation to the
Supreme Court through the Surabaya District Court. | en_US |
