http://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/79637 2026-11-02T04:13:26Z info:eu-repo/semantics/descriptiveMetadata https://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/79637/ PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA TERHADAP PELAKU PENCURIAN OLEH KARYAWAN DI TEMPAT KERJA: ANALISIS YURIDIS PUTUSAN PN SLEMAN NO. 184/PID.B/2022 Irwanto Dwi Saputra, NIM.: 19103040038 345 Hukum Pidana Theft committed by an employee in the workplace raises legal issues concerning the protection of property rights, the misuse of access arising from an employment relationship, and the legal basis for imposing criminal liability. This study examines the criminal liability of an employee who committed theft and the judicial considerations in Sleman District Court Decision Number 184/Pid.B/2022/PN Smn. The case concerned a defendant who worked and resided at the victim's food stall, took the key to the victim's motorcycle, and used the motorcycle without permission. Law Number 1 of 2023 concerning the Indonesian Criminal Code is employed as a framework for examining the development of national criminal law, without applying it retroactively to the offence committed in 2022. This study employs normative legal research conducted through library research and is descriptive-analytical in nature. It applies statutory, case, and conceptual approaches. The primary legal materials consist of relevant legislation and Sleman District Court Decision Number 184/Pid.B/2022/PN Smn, while the secondary legal materials include textbooks, scholarly journals, previous studies, and relevant expert opinions. The legal materials are analysed using a qualitative descriptive method, and conclusions are drawn deductively by relating the legal principles of criminal liability, theft, and judicial reasoning to the specific facts of the case. The study finds that the defendant could be held criminally liable because his conduct fulfilled the elements of Article 362 of the former Indonesian Criminal Code, he possessed the capacity for criminal responsibility, acted intentionally, and had neither a justification nor an excuse. The employment relationship did not remove the unlawfulness of taking another person's property without permission, while disputes concerning reprimands, wages, and working hours merely explained the defendant's motive. Article 362 was more appropriately applied than Article 363 paragraph (1) point 3 because the defendant's presence at the premises was known and permitted by the victim in his capacity as an employee who lived there. The judges' findings were supported by the evidence and facts established at trial, providing a legal basis for the sentence of one year's imprisonment. Nevertheless, the decision did not sufficiently explain the rejection of the aggravated-theft charge, the assessment of the defendant's capacity and intent, or the basis for determining the type and duration of the sentence. Judicial reasoning in similar cases should therefore be presented more comprehensively, transparently, and proportionately, with due regard to the sentencing guidelines under the new Indonesian Criminal Code. 2026-08-21 Thesis NonPeerReviewed text id https://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/79637/1/19103040038_BAB-I_IV-atau-V_DAFTAR-PUSTAKA.pdf text id https://digilib.uin-suka.ac.id/id/eprint/79637/2/19103040038_BAB-II_sampai_SEBELUM-BAB-TERAKHIR.pdf Irwanto Dwi Saputra, NIM.: 19103040038 (2026) PERTANGGUNGJAWABAN PIDANA TERHADAP PELAKU PENCURIAN OLEH KARYAWAN DI TEMPAT KERJA: ANALISIS YURIDIS PUTUSAN PN SLEMAN NO. 184/PID.B/2022. Skripsi thesis, UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA. info:eu-repo/semantics/objectFile info:eu-repo/semantics/objectFile info:eu-repo/semantics/humanStartPage