PUTUSAN PENGADILAN NEGERI MUNGKID DAN PENGADILAN NEGERI SLEMAN TENTANG SANKSI PIDANA REVENGE PORNOGRAPHY: STUDI PUTUSAN NOMOR 232/PID.SUS/2021/PN.MKD DAN PUTUSAN NOMOR 709/PID.SUS/2024/PN.SMNNIM.: 22103060012Muhammad Isna Nur HakimauthorThis research examines the differences between the decisions of the Mungkid District Court Number 232/Pid.Sus/2021/PN.Mkd and the Sleman District Court Number 709/Pid.Sus/2024/PN.Smn concerning criminal sanctions for revenge pornography. This research aims to analyze the judges’ considerations in imposing criminal sanctions and examine the differences between the two decisions based on the theory of punishment in positive and Islamic criminal law and the theory of al-Ikhtilāf fī Fahm al-Naṣṣ wa Tafsīrih. This research employs a juridical-normative method with a descriptiveanalytical character. The approach used is library research, with primary legal materials consisting of the Mungkid District Court Decision Number 232/Pid.Sus/2021/PN.Mkd and the Sleman District Court Decision Number 709/Pid.Sus/2024/PN.Smn. Secondary sources include books, academic journals, legal documents, and relevant previous research. The data were analyzed qualitatively. The results show that both decisions recognize revenge pornography as a criminal act that fulfills the elements stipulated under the Indonesian Electronic Information and Transactions Law and impose criminal sanctions as a form of accountability for the defendants’ conduct. Based on the combined theory of punishment, both decisions are not merely retributive but also pursue preventive, rehabilitative, and protective objectives. From the perspective of Islamic criminal law, revenge pornography may be categorized as a jarimah ta’zir because it violates the principle of protecting human dignity (hifẓ al-‘irḍ) and the prohibition against causing harm. The differences between the decisions can be understood as consequences of differences in judicial ijtihad in assessing the facts, interpreting the elements of the offense, and determining appropriate punishment. Therefore, such differences do not necessarily indicate inconsistency in the application of law.340.2 Hukum Perbandingan2026-06-10UIN SUNAN KALIJAGA YOGYAKARTA;FAKULTAS SYARI’AH DAN HUKUMThesis