Institutional Repository UIN Sunan Kalijaga YogyakartaANALISIS PERTIMBANGAN HAKIM DALAM MENJATUHKAN PIDANA UANG PENGGANTI DI BAWAH TUNTUTAN DALAM PERKARA KORUPSI (STUDI PUTUSAN NO. 9/PID.SUS-TPK/2024/PN YYK, PUTUSAN NO. 8/PID.SUS-TPK/2024/PT YYK, DAN PUTUSAN NO. 3307 K/PID.SUS/2025)NIM.: 22103040107Muhammad FathurroziauthorIdeally, additional criminal penalties in the form of restitution should be imposed at the maximum level to achieve the very purpose of restitution itself, namely as an effort to recover losses incurred by the state. However, in Judgment No. 9/Pid.Sus-TPK/2024/PN Yyk, Judgment No. 8/Pid.Sus-TPK/2024/PT Yyk, and Judgment No. 3307 K/Pid.Sus/2025, the monetary restitution imposed by the judge was actually much lower than the prosecution’s request. This study aims to analyze the judges’ reasoning in imposing fines below the Public Prosecutor’s demands in these cases, as well as to examine the legal certainty surrounding the determination of such fines. This study is a normative legal study with a descriptive-analytical nature. The approaches used include a statutory approach and a case-based approach. Data were obtained through a literature review of laws and regulations, court decisions, books, journals, and other legal literature, and were supplemented by interviews with judges who heard and decided the cases. Data analysis was conducted qualitatively using the theory of judicial reasoning and the theory of legal certainty. The research findings indicate that the judge’s decision to impose a monetary penalty lower than the prosecution’s request was based on both legal and non-legal considerations. From a legal perspective, the Panel of Judges in the case at hand imposed the monetary penalty based on the proven financial loss to the state amounting to Rp500,000,000.00. From a non-legal perspective, the judges considered the objective of recovering state losses, the deterrent effect, the social impact of corruption, and the protection of the Defendant. As for legal certainty, the imposition of the restitution penalty in the case at hand reflects legal certainty in the evidentiary process because the Panel of Judges did not use the Public Prosecutor’s calculation of state financial losses—which was deemed invalid—as the basis for its decision. However, the imposition of a monetary penalty has not yet fully provided legal certainty because it has not clearly demonstrated the relationship between the amount imposed as a monetary penalty and the assets acquired or enjoyed by the Defendant, as required by the parameters of Article 18 paragraph (1) letter b of the Law on the Eradication of Corruption Offenses.347.07 Keputusan Hakim2026-08-18UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA;FAKULTAS SYARIAH DAN HUKUMThesis

For work being deposited by its own author: In self-archiving this collection of files and associated bibliographic metadata, I grant Institutional Repository UIN Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta the right to store them and to make them permanently available publicly for free on-line. I declare that this material is my own intellectual property and I understand that Institutional Repository UIN Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta does not assume any responsibility if there is any breach of copyright in distributing these files or metadata. (All authors are urged to prominently assert their copyright on the title page of their work.)

For work being deposited by someone other than its author: I hereby declare that the collection of files and associated bibliographic metadata that I am archiving at Institutional Repository UIN Sunan Kalijaga Yogyakarta) is in the public domain. If this is not the case, I accept full responsibility for any breach of copyright that distributing these files or metadata may entail.

Clicking on the deposit button indicates your agreement to these terms.