Tinjauan Terhadap Tindak Pidana Pasal 78 Jo Pasal 73 Ayat 2 Undang-undang Nomor 29 Tahun 2004 Tentang Praktek Kedokteran Dalam Perkara No 58/Pid.Sus/2017/PT.PBR

ABSTRAC Practical activities at MR. SHOOP SPECIALIST Orthodontics by cleaning tartar is included in the practice of dentistry activities, while for the installation of braces carried out by the Defendant using the tools of a specialist dentist, it is included in the practice of Specialist Orthodontic dentistry which must be carried out by an Orthodontic Specialist dentist who already has a certificate Orthodontic specialist competence for dentists must be registered with the Indonesian Dental Association (PDGI) and the Indonesian Orthodontic Association (IKORTI). The Defendant's actions as regulated and subject to criminal penalties in Article 78 in conjunction with Article 73 paragraph (2) of the Law of the Republic of Indonesia No. 29 of 2004 concerning the practice of medicine. The formulation of the problem in this research is how to apply Article 78 Jo Article 73 paragraph (2) of Law no. 29 of 2004 in the case of decision no. 58/Pid.Sus/2017/PT.Pbr and How are legal considerations by judges in applying Article 78 Jo Article 73 paragraph (2) of Law no. 29 of 2004 in the case of decision no. 58/Pid.Sus/2017/PT.Pbr. This type of research, this research is included in the normative legal research group. While the nature is descriptive, namely to describe how the judge's considerations in medical criminal cases. The application of article 78 in conjunction with article 73 paragraph 2 of Law Number 29 of 2004 because the defendant Robi Sugara Als Robi Bin Sudirman intentionally used an identity in the form of a title or other form that gave the impression to the public as if the person concerned was a doctor or dentist who already had Registration Certificate and/or Practice License as referred to in Article 73 Paragraph (2). Application for appeal filed by the Public Prosecutor on Decision Number: 1180/PID.SUS/2016/PN. PBR dated February 16, 2017. It is very appropriate considering the demands of 5 years in prison or a fine of 150,000,000, - but the judge only granted and decided the case with a prison sentence of two years and two months considering that this was very far from the demands and for the sake of justice, the application was submitted an appeal would have been the right step. If the Public Prosecutor does not do this, then the purpose of justice from the law will fail and in the future it will not provide a deterrent effect to the perpetrators of criminal acts of other medical professions. So the judge's decision to stipulate article 73 paragraph 1 in conjunction with article 78 of Law Number 29 of 2004 concerning Medical Practice is very appropriate because the defendant Robi Sugara not only pretended to be a doctor but he also dared to practice like a professional doctor and all the evidence supporters have been confiscated for destruction