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.

The enactment of Law Number 46 Year 2009 on The Corruption Court, is authorized to examine and decide the crime of corruption cases proposed by KPK or Prosecutor. Based on Article 35 paragraph (1) jo paragraph (4) of Law Number 46 of 2009, confirmed that corruption courts (Tipikor courts) are only located in each provincial capital whose jurisdiction covers the province concerned. By this provision, the Prosecutor Office in each district/city must transfer the corruption cases to the Corruption Court in the provincial capital. There are the problems as the following: first one, Is the process of criminal justice in the archipelago province (like NTT) able to fulfill the judicial principle of quick, low cost and simple?; second one, Is this condition not an obstacle in the process of criminal law enforcement in NTT?; The result of this research is that the Corruption Court in Kupang, conducted by several Prosecutor Offices, the samples do not meet the judicial principles of quick, low costs and simple. The obstacles besides spending much expenses, there are other factors such as weather, intentionally neglect the obligation as the experts, witnesses due to long time and high expenses. Law enforcement becomes less maximal due to the existing budget, and it can only be done by a minimal law enforcement process with a fairly expensive cost.

Penahanan terhadap terdakwa sebenarnya hal yang wajar namun menjadi persoalan ketika penahanan itu dilakukan oleh hakim yang sudah tidak mempunyai kewenangan lagi untuk melakukan penahanan sehingga permasalahan yang akan muncul yaitu bagaimana Dasar Pertimbangan hakim dalam Menjatuhkan perintah penahanan terhadap terdakwa yang belum berkekuatan hukum tetap dan akibat hukum apakah yang timbul jika jaksa mengeksekusi perintah penahanan oleh hakim terhadap terdakwa yang belum mempunyai kekuatan hukum tetap. Untuk menjawab persoalan ini maka penelitian ini menggunakan penelitian hukum empiris dengan metode yang digunakan yaitu wawancara. Berdasarkan hasil penelitian ditemukan bahwa hakim sebenarnya melakukan penahanan untuk tujuan mempermudah pekerjaan dari jaksa namun ada hak yang dilanggar yaitu hak hukum untuk mengajukan banding dan sebenarnya hakim pengadilan tingkat pertama tidak mempunyai kewenangan lagi untuk menahan dengan alas an apapun sehingga disarankan sebaiknya terdakwa jangan dilakukan penahanan jika terdakwa tersebut tidak mempersulit hakim dalam melakukan pemeriksaan.