This study explores the judicial process involved in criminal cases of protected forest destruction, specifically focusing on the differences in how first-level and cassation-level judges approach the decision-making process. It identifies the factors that influence judicial considerations at each level of the judicial hierarchy and seeks to understand how these differences impact the effectiveness of legal outcomes in environmental cases. The analysis is grounded in environmental law and highlights the implications of legal interpretation, judicial consistency, and legal precedent in the context of criminal cases involving deforestation and illegal logging activities. Based on a qualitative review of court cases, interviews with judges, and legal scholars, the research provides insights into the role of cassation courts in shaping national environmental policy.

The study concludes that first-level courts tend to focus more on the facts of individual cases, delivering more immediate consequences such as fines or imprisonment. In contrast, cassation courts prioritize legal interpretation, ensuring uniformity in the application of the law, which influences the long-term development of environmental jurisprudence. These insights are crucial in understanding the broader role of judicial systems in the enforcement of environmental laws and the protection of natural resources.