<![CDATA[This study examined the legal issue of applying Article 363 of the Criminal Code to the defendant’s actions in Decision Number 2489/Pid.B/2025/PN Surabaya, which occurred after a demonstration. The purpose was to assess the suitability of theft elements with aggravating sanctions based on trial facts and to determine a more appropriate legal qualification. The research used a normative legal method with statutory and case approaches, analyzing charges, demands, judicial decisions, and criminal law doctrine. Findings showed that applying Article 363 was not fully appropriate because the element of taking another’s property with intent to possess unlawfully was not convincingly proven. The object, a street nameplate as a public facility, indicated more of an act of moving or damaging rather than permanent control, which is central to theft. Moreover, the post-demonstration context cannot automatically justify aggravation without concrete evidence linking circumstances to the defendant’s actions. Errors in offense qualification affect criminal responsibility and limit proportional settlement options, including restorative justice. Therefore, law enforcement must prioritize accuracy of evidence, the principle of personal responsibility, and substantive justice as the foundation for applying criminal norms]]>
Copyrights © 2026
