Pemidanaan Terhadap Pelaku Penyedia Sarana Prasarana Perjudian (Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Magetan)

Nur Fitria Ningrum, Rizki and , Hartanto, S.H., M.H. (2020) Pemidanaan Terhadap Pelaku Penyedia Sarana Prasarana Perjudian (Studi Kasus Putusan Pengadilan Negeri Magetan). Skripsi thesis, Universitas Muhammadiyah Surakarta.

	PDF (Naskah Publikasi) NASPUB.pdf Download (551kB)
	PDF (Halaman Depan) HALAMAN DEPAN.pdf Download (631kB)
	PDF (Bab I) BAB I.pdf Download (308kB)
	PDF (Bab II) BAB II.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (268kB) | Request a copy
	PDF (Bab III) BAB III.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (213kB) | Request a copy
	PDF (Bab IV) BAB IV.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (89kB) | Request a copy
	PDF (Daftar Pustaka) DAPUS.pdf Download (144kB)
	PDF (Lampiran) LAMPIRAN.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (1MB) | Request a copy
	PDF (Surat Pernyataan Publikasi) SURAT PERNYATAAN PUBLIKASI ILMIAH TTD.pdf Restricted to Repository staff only Download (417kB) | Request a copy

Abstract

The most common form of crime in Indonesia is gambling, one of which is in Magetan Regency. Most of the Criminal Acts of Gambling committed are Hong Kong lottery gambling. Regulations regarding gambling in Indonesia can be found in the Penal Code, namely Article 303 of the Second Book (crime) in Chapter XIV concerning crimes against politeness. The gambling crime committed is closely related to the criminalization of gambling offenders. Every person who becomes a gambling infrastructure provider must be given a criminal penalty. In several Magetan District Court decisions, the judge sentenced him to three years, six months and nine months. In Decision Number 12 / Pid.B / 2019 / PN Mgt, the defendant on behalf of Endy Catur Karyanto was prosecuted by the Public Prosecutor for one year but the Judge sentenced the defendant to a sentence of six months in prison. Whereas in Decision Number 17 / Pid.B / 2019 / PN Mgt, the defendant on behalf of Tunggal Satria Adi was prosecuted by the Public Prosecutor for one year and the judge was sentenced to nine months. Both of these decisions were issued in the same year as contiguous times and the types of gambling perpetrated by the perpetrators were the same, namely as a provider of gambling infrastructure, but the sentences were different and tended to be more light.

Item Type:	Karya ilmiah (Skripsi)
Uncontrolled Keywords:	conviction, decision, judge consideration, gambling.
Subjects:	K Law > K Law (General)
Divisions:	Fakultas Hukum > Hukum
Depositing User:	RIZKI NUR FITRIA NINGRUM
Date Deposited:	16 Nov 2020 12:00
Last Modified:	16 Nov 2020 12:00
URI:	http://eprints.ums.ac.id/id/eprint/87434

Actions (login required)

View Item