T The application of criminal sanctions must consider a balance between the legal protection of individuals and the interests of society. as a measure of ultimum remedium, criminal sanctions cannot be imposed without taking into account the objectives of punishment and the exceptions stipulated in criminal law. the case of mario pangalila, who was sentenced to a criminal penalty for posting criticism alleging village fund corruption on facebook, highlights the complexity of applying defamation provisions in the context of public interest. the main issues are the conformity of the imposed criminal sanction with the provisions of article 45 paragraph (3) in conjunction with article 27 paragraph (3) of law no. 19 of 2016 and the alignment of the court\\\'s ruling with the objectives of punishment within indonesia’s criminal justice system. this research uses a descriptive normative legal method, examining primary legal materials such as the criminal code, law no. 19 of 2016 on electronic information and transactions, district court decision of tondano number 84/pid.sus/2024/pn tnn, as well as relevant secondary legal materials. it is concluded that the judge\\\'s decision disregards the exception stipulated in article 310 paragraph (3) of the criminal code regarding public interest and fails to achieve the purpose of punishment, rendering the imposed sentence of 7 months imprisonment and a fine of rp10,000,000.00 against mario pangalila inconsistent with criminal law principles and potentially infringing on the right to freedom of expression.