<![CDATA[ABSTRAKTindak pidana penipuan atau penggelapan merupakan dakwaan alternatif yang dibuat oleh penuntut umum dalam Putusan Nomor 306/Pid.B/2017/PN.Smd. Dalam pertimbangannya hakim membuktikan unsur-unsur tindak pidana penipuan; namun demikian dalam amar putusannya menyatakan bahwa terdakwa bersalah melakukan tindak pidana penggelapan. Sanksi pidana penjara 10 tahun yang dijatuhkan terhadap terdakwa menyimpangi special straf maxima. Rumusan masalah dalam tulisan ini, apakah amar Putusan Nomor 306/Pid.B/2017/PN.Smd yang melanggar “asas” special straf maxima telah memenuhi asas kepastian hukum yang adil? Metode yuridis normatif digunakan dalam penulisan ini. Sumber data diperoleh dari data sekunder yang meliputi bahan hukum primer, dan bahan hukum sekunder. Putusan Nomor 306/Pid.B/2017/PN.Smd seharusnya batal demi hukum, karena tidak terpenuhinya syarat formalitas putusan sebagaimana ditentukan Pasal 197 ayat (1) KUHAP. Di samping itu, penjatuhan sanksi pidana penjara selama 10 tahun melanggar ketentuan special straf maxima, dan melanggar kepastian hukum yang adil. Namun, berdasarkan asas res judicata pro veritate habetur, apapun putusan hakim harus dianggap benar sampai ada putusan hakim yang lebih tinggi yang menyatakan sebaliknya. Kata kunci: special straf maxima; tindak pidana penipuan; tindak pidana penggelapan. ABSTRACTFraud or embezzlement is an alternative indictment made by the public prosecutor in Decision Number 306/ Pid.B/2017/PN.Smd. In the judge’s consideration, all elements of the criminal act of fraud have been successfully proven; however, in the conviction it was stated that the defendant was guilty of the crime of embezzlement. The 10 years imprisonment imposed on the defendant violated the special straf maxima “principle”. The formulation of the problem to analyze is whether the sentencing in the Decision Number 306/Pid.B/2017/PN.Smd violating principle has met the principle of fair-legal certainty. This paper uses normative juridical method and obtain data sources from secondary data including primary and secondary legal material. Decision Number 306/Pid.B/2017/PN.Smd should be null and void, because it did not meet the formal requirements of the decision as stipulated in Article 197 paragraph (1) of the Criminal Procedure Code. In addition, the imposition of imprisonment for 10 years violates the principle of the special straf maxima and fair legal certainty. However, based on the principle of res judicata pro veritate habetur, the judge’s decision whatsoever must be deliberated truthful until there is a decision of a superior judge which states otherwise. Keywords: special straf maxima; fraud; embezzlement. ]]>
