Pertimbangan Hakim dalam Pembuktian Unsur Tindak Pidana Penyebaran Berita Bohong dan Menyesatkan yang Mengakibatkan Kerugian Konsumen dalam Transaksi Elektronik (Studi Putusan Nomor 364/Pid.Sus/2023/Pn Jkt.Sel dan Putusan Nomor 782 K/Pid.Sus/2024)

Abstract

The rapid development of information and communication technology has had an impact on people's lives. One of them is the emergence of criminal acts of spreading false and misleading news that can result in consumer losses in electronic transactions. Consumers whose rights should be protected, such as the right to obtain security and correct information, are threatened by this criminal act. Proving whether or not the defendant has committed the charged act is the most important part of criminal procedure law. This thesis contains several problem formulations, namely: 1). How is the regulation of the criminal offense of spreading false and misleading news according to Indonesian positive law; 2). How to prove the elements of the criminal offense of spreading false and misleading news that results in consumer harm in electronic transactions; 3). How are the differences in judges' considerations in proving the elements of the criminal offense of spreading false and misleading news resulting in consumer harm in electronic transactions (Study of Decision Number 364/Pid.Sus/2023/PN JKT.SEL and Decision Number 782 K/Pid.Sus/2024). At the end of this study, it can be concluded that there are differences in the consideration of judges in verdict number 364/Pid.Sus/2023/ PN Jkt.Sel and verdict number 782 K/Pid.Sus/2024 seen in the verdict of the district court which decided that the defendant was not proven to have committed the crime of spreading false news, while the supreme court decided that the defendant was proven to have participated in the crime of spreading false and misleading news. The difference in the decision was motivated by the different considerations of the judges on the role of the defendant in realizing the criminal act of spreading false news. So that the Supreme Court judge disagreed with the district court's decision and was of the opinion that the district court judge ruled out the element of participation in committing a criminal offense.