T This thesis examines the panel of judges\\\' legal reasoning in determining the applicable criminal offense and applying statutory provisions in decision number 322/pid.sus/2023/pn jkt.sel. in the case *a quo*, the panel of judges applied article 81 of law number 18 of 2017 concerning the protection of indonesian migrant workers, despite the trial evidence demonstrating elements of recruitment, transportation, deception, abuse of a position of vulnerability, and exploitation, which constitute the offense of human trafficking as regulated under law number 21 of 2007 on the eradication of the criminal offense of human trafficking. this study focuses on analyzing the judges\\\' reasoning in determining the appropriate criminal offense and assessing whether the applied legal provision was consistent with the legal facts established during the trial.this research employs a normative legal research method with a descriptive-analytical approach, using both statutory and case approaches. the data were collected through library research and interviews with an expert in criminal procedure law, and were analyzed qualitatively using a deductive method.the findings indicate that the panel of judges placed greater emphasis on the illegal placement of indonesian migrant workers rather than on the elements of exploitation suffered by the victims. however, the facts established during the trial demonstrated that all elements of the criminal offense of human trafficking had been fulfilled. accordingly, the application of article 81 of law number 18 of 2017 is considered not to have fully reflected the nature of the defendants\\\' conduct and resulted in the victims being deprived of their right to restitution. these findings underscore the importance of judicial accuracy in determining the appropriate criminal offense and applying the relevant legal provisions in order to ensure legal certainty, justice, and effective protection for victims.