<![CDATA[Abstrak - Pasal 62 ayat (1) UU Perlindungan Konsumen menyebutkan maksimal penjara 5 tahun atau denda 2 miliar rupiah terhadap pelaku usaha yang tidak mencantumkan tanggal kadaluwarsa. Pada kasus ini dijatuhi pidana percobaan. Penulisan bertujuan menjelaskan putusan hakim tidak memperhatikan fakta persidangan, pertimbangan hakim menjatuhkan percobaan, serta menjelaskan kepastian hukum, keadilan dan kemanfaatan. Penelitian kualitatif menggunakan bahan hukum sekunder ini diperoleh melalui studi kepustakaan. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan majelis hakim tidak memperhatikan fakta persidangan yaitu, saksi yang hadir hanya penyidik, ahli Dinas Kesehatan yang memberikan penilaian kandungan liquid rokok, tidak dihadirkan. Hakim sepatutnya menjatuhkan pidana denda karena berkaitan dengan kegiatan ekonomi mendapatkan keuntungan. Menjatuhkan hukuman percobaan tidak memenuhi kepastian hukum karena terlalu ringan sehingga masih terjadi penjualan cairan rokok elektrik tanpa mencantumkan tanggal kadaluwarsa. Tidak memenuhi keadilan masyarakat sebagai korban, belum memenuhi kemanfaatan karena tidak menimbulkan efek jera bagi pelaku dan meresahkan masyarakat. Disarankan mendatangkan ahli BNNP dan Dinas Kesehatan.Kata Kunci : Pidana percobaan, Putusan, Studi Kasus, Tanggal kadaluwarsa. Abstract - Article 62 Paragraph (1) of the Consumer Protection Law stipulates a maximum imprisonment of 5 years or a fine of 2 billion rupiah for subject who do not specify an expiration date. In this case a Probation was sentenced. Writing aim is to explain the judge's decision does not pay attention to the facts of the trial, the judge's judgment dropped the Probation, and explain legal certainty, justice and expediency. Qualitative research using secondary legal materials was obtained through literature study. The results showed the panel of judges did not pay attention to the facts of the probation, for example witnesses present were only investigators, Health Service experts who provided an assessment of the liquid content of cigarettes, Judges were not present. Judges rightly impose criminal fines because they relate to economic activities that benefit.Judges dropping a suspended sentence does not meet legal certainty because it is too small so there is still a sale of e-cigarettes without specifying an expiration date.This does not meet the justice of the community as victims, has not fulfilled the benefits because it does not cause a deterrent effect for the perpetrators and is unsettling the community. It is recommended to bring in BNNP experts and the Public Health Officer.Keywords : Probation, Adjudication, Case Study, Expiration date.]]>
