<![CDATA[Artikel ini ditulis bertujuan untuk mengetahui argumentasi perbedaan pendapat pertimbangan hakim memutus terhadap alasan kasasi Penuntut Umum dalam Tindak Pidana Korupsi yang diputus Mahkamah Agung berdasarkan Putusan Nomor:1555K/Pid.Sus/2019 ditinjau dari ketentuan KUHAP. Jenis penelitian hukum ini adalah penelitian normatif atau doktrinal, yang bersifat preskiptif dan terapan dengan pendekatan kasus. Teknik pengumpulan bahan hukum primer dan sekunder diperoleh dari studi dokumen atau kepustakaan. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian dan pembahasan diketahui bahwa pertimbangan Hakim Mahkamah Agung dalam mengabulkan permohonan Kasasi Penuntut Umum, telah sesuai dengan ketentuan Pasal 255 jo Pasal 256 KUHAP dan membatalkan Putusan sebelumnya. Menyatakan terdakwa bersalah melakukan tindak pidana korupsi secara bersama-sama dan menjatuhkan pidana penjara, denda serta uang pengganti. Karena dalam memutus perkara ini terdapat Dissenting Opinion diantara anggota Judex Juris, maka putusan dijatuhkan atas dasar suara terbanyak dan telah sesuai dengan ketentuan Pasal 182 ayat (6) huruf a KUHAP jo Pasal 255 ayat (1) jo Pasal 193 ayat (1) KUHAP.Kata Kunci: Dissenting Opinion; Judex Factie; Kasasi, Korupsi; PenuntutUmum.This article was written with the aim of finding out the arguments for differences of opinion in the consideration of the judge's decision on the reasons for the appeal by the Public Prosecutor in the Corruption Crime which was decided by the Supreme Court based on Decision Number: 1555K/Pid.Sus/2019 in terms of the provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code. This type of legal research is normative or doctrinal research, which is prescriptive and applied with a case approach. Techniques for collecting primary and secondary legal materials are obtained from document studies or literature. Based on the results of the research and discussion it is known that the Supreme Court Judge's consideration in granting the Public Prosecutor's cassation request was in accordance with the provisions of Article 255 in conjunction with Article 256 of the Criminal Procedure Code and canceled the previous decision. Declare guilty of committing the criminal act of corruption jointly and impose prison sentences, fines and compensation money. Because in deciding this case there was a Dissenting Opinion among Judex Juris members, the decision was made on the basis of a majority vote and was in accordance with the provisions of Article 182 paragraph (6) letter a of the Criminal Procedure Code in conjunction with Article 255 paragraph (1) in conjunction with Article 193 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code.Keywords: Dissenting Opinion; Judex Factie; Cassation; Corruption; Public Proscutor.]]>
Copyrights © 2023
