<![CDATA[This study aims to analyze the judicial reasoning underlying the differences in decisions of acquittal from all legal charges (onslag van alle rechtsvervolging) between the District Court and the cassation level in cases involving unlawful control of plantation land. These differing decisions indicate variations in legal interpretation, particularly regarding the application of the elements of criminal offenses and the assessment of evidentiary facts presented during trial. The research employs a normative legal method with both statutory and case-based approaches. Data were collected through library research, including the analysis of court decisions, statutory regulations, and relevant legal literature. The findings reveal that judges at the District Court level, acting as judex facti, tend to focus on factual examination and conclude that the defendant’s conduct does not fulfill the elements of a criminal offense, resulting in a decision of acquittal from all charges. In contrast, at the cassation level, the Supreme Court, as judex juris, identifies errors in the application of law by the judex facti, particularly in interpreting the element of unlawfulness and the relationship between the defendant’s actions and the applicable criminal provisions. These differences in judicial decisions reflect the existence of interpretative space within criminal law, as well as the importance of consistency in the application of legal norms.This study concludes that such discrepancies in judicial decisions are influenced not only by the factual circumstances of the case but also by the perspectives of judges in interpreting the law. Therefore, clearer guidelines are required to ensure legal certainty and uniformity in judicial decisions within criminal justice practice.]]>
