Tinjauan Yuridis Terhadap Tindak Pidana Pencurian yang Dilakukan Secara Bersama - sama Terhadap Pembobolan ATM BRI (Studi Kasus Terhadap Putusan Nomor: 2249/Pid. B/2014/PN. Mdn)

Abstract

Theft conducted jointly constitute one single entity diseases society of evil, which is in the process of history turned out to captivate the generations that such crimes are crimes that harm and torment others. Therefore, it is necessary that people stay away from committing theft against others. The problem posed is How to Setup the crime of theft committed jointly against burglary BRI ATM in criminal law. Basic considerations and how the judge in deciding the criminal case of theft committed jointly against burglary BRI ATM in Decision No. 2249 / Pid.B / 2014 / PN. Mdn. To determine the purpose and benefits of setting the crime of theft committed jointly against burglary BRI ATM in law judge pidana.Untuk basic considerations in deciding the criminal case of theft committed jointly against burglary BRI ATM in Decision No. 2249 / Pid .B / 2014 / PN. Mdn. In case the decision No. 2249 / Pid.B / 2014 / PN.Mdn defendant to comply with Article 363 paragraph (1) to 4 and 5 to the Criminal Code .. Article Article 363 paragraph (1) to 4 and 5 of the Criminal Code, which contains the elements as following: Whosoever; By deliberately entering into crime or can reach the goods to take, by way of unpacking, breaking or climbing or by wearing a false key, false commands or office clothes, fake. In its decision, the case No: 2249 / Pid.B / 2014 / PN.Mdn, the Panel of Judges considered that the defendant is a person who has grown up and able to be responsible, act or acts of theft committed jointly against ATM fraud BRI such actions are contrary by law, the defendant regretted his actions. Medan District Court judge ruled against the verdict in the case No: 2249 / Pid.B / 2014 / PN.Mdn, also has to consider the things that are burdensome and relieve the defendant ie as stipulated in Article 197 paragraph (1) f of the Criminal Procedure Code , the judge sentenced the defendant premises imprisonment of 2 (two) years. To avoid the crime of theft should the public have to be careful in doing any action that acts provoke somebody to commit theft and ultimately involuntary. We recommend that the general public should be more cautious in supervising their property so it does not provide an opportunity for offenders to fulfill their intentions.