TANGERANG CITY’S GENERAL CRIMINAL OFFICER ERRORS 1.6-MONTH RECIDIVIST DEMANDS HAVE BEEN JUDGED FOR THE SAME CASE, HAS NEVER BEEN JUDGED.

Tangerang, indonesiapos.net.

Syarifudin, 57, a resident of Pondok Bahar Village, RT 01/01, Pindok Bahar Village, Larang Tengah District, Tangerang City, was demanded by prosecutor Piddin, SH, to serve only one year and six months without serving his sentence because he was serving a sentence for the same case.

Before the panel of judges, Ali Murdiat, SH, MH, prosecutor Muhammad Piddin Bihaqi, SH, proved that the defendant was sentenced to prison under Article 378 of the Criminal Code.

The aggravating factor for defendant Syarifudin’s actions was that witness Sutardi had suffered losses of 400,000,000, four hundred million Rupiah. The defendant had already enjoyed the proceeds of his crime.

In his indictment, prosecutor Piddin outlined the aggravating circumstance of the defendant’s previous conviction in a similar case.

“The mitigating factor is that the defendant has never been convicted before, and he was straightforward in his testimony,” said Judge Ali Murdiat, SH, MH, Public Prosecutor.

The question raised by the courtroom audience was that the defendant had previously been convicted of a similar crime. (Recidivist) stated that the defendant had never been convicted. In the prosecution’s indictment, the prosecutor distorted the facts of the trial to give the defendant a lighter sentence.

Syarifudin was legally and convincingly proven to have committed a crime with the intent to unlawfully benefit himself or another person by using a false name or false prestige through deception or trickery.

The lie persuaded another person, namely Sakai Sutardi, to hand over an item as stipulated in Article 378 of the Criminal Code.

The defendant, as a legal subject supporting rights and obligations, was in good physical and mental health and capable of realizing the criminal act he had committed.

There was also no excuse or justification beyond the provisions of Articles 44, 48, 49, 50, and 51 of the Criminal Code, therefore, The defendant can be held criminally responsible.

Defendant Syarifudin contacted Sukatmi, the daughter of Galih Ardi Nugroho, who was undergoing training to become a member of the Indonesian National Police (Polri). Sukardi and Sukatmi are Galih’s parents.

Syarifudin agreed to arrange for Galih Ardi Nugroho to become a member of the Indonesian National Police (Polri), provided Galih’s parents could provide 350 million Rupiah for his enlistment.

Syarifudin’s ruse to deceive Galih’s parents, who had already paid 400 million Rupiah, proved ineffective in securing Galih’s enlistment.

Galih Ardi Nugroho failed and was not selected.

Upon learning that his son had failed, Sarifudin demanded an additional 100 million Rupiah. However, the victims, Sutardi and Sukatmi, could only provide 50 million Rupiah.

In the defendant’s statement, broadcast on a TV monitor in courtroom 4 of the Tangerang City District Court,

Syarifudin admitted that the former police officer promised his followers that he could get anyone who wanted to become a member of the Indonesian National Police (Polri). Police.

This time, the victim, Galih Ardi Nugroho, was taking training to become a police officer at the Dig Daya study group, which he admitted belonged to Defendant Syaripudin.

Defendant Syaripudin stated that he ran a tutoring class at home. After registration and taking the test, he was then registered with the police.

As a police officer, the files were handed over to Sobari, who handled the paperwork. The victim also knew when the Defendant handed over the money to Sobari.

After failing the police test, the victim’s parents finally reported Syaripudin to the police.

Sobari and Samidi, however, refused to take responsibility, claiming they felt no guilt.

The Defendant has returned part of the victim’s 60 million rupiah loss. The Defendant only acted as an intermediary for Sobari and Samidi. The Defendant was not detained.

The prosecutor stated that there was another case, the same case, but the victim was someone else.

The Defendant’s attorney, Abel Marbun SH, stated, “I will file a defense against Syarifudin.

Abel was asked if he would request release. His answer was “We’ll see in the defense.”

(play)