English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Additional fine penalty in corruption constitutes specific regulation. This aims to restore the state  financial loss and to give deterrent effect. Yet, the judge's verdict raises problems: Why do the judge's verdicts related to subsidiary fine penality by imprisonment penalty tend to vary and inconsistent in length of the imprisonment. The purpose of the study is to identify and analyze the  judge's consideration in determining various and inconsistent subsidiary fine penalty by imprisonment. The research applied normative juridical method by relying on primary and secondary legal materials. The results show that: 1) judges do not specifically regulate fine penalty or subsidiary in terms of imprisonment penalty. The large amount of fine penalty does not equal to the relatively short imprisonment which does not result in a deterrent effect. 2) There is no limit to the length of imprisonment for a short sentence. Thus, it is suggested that proportional regulation is required between fine penalty and imprisonment penalty subsidiary for restoring state financial loss. Keywords : fine penalty, imprisonment penalty subsdiary, judge's verdict

JUDGE VERDICTS ON SUBSIDIARY FINE PENALTY OF CORRUPTION CRIMES (A Case Study on High Prosecutor General Office of NTT)