This research aims to analyzes the suitability of judge’s cosideration in Decision Number 6/Pdt.G.S/2022/PN Cjr with the Fiduciary Guarantee Law and the legal implication for the parties who involved this case. This research uses a normative legal approach, relying on primary and secondary legal sources. The data is collected through analysis and deductive thinking. The research findings: Firstly, the judge’s consideration in the decision does not suitable with the Fiduciary Guarantee Law. The debtor is found to be in defaulted by failing to pay off the debt on time and transferring the fiduciary collateral without the creditor’s written permisson so there is a criminal act of embezzlement in it. Secondly, the creditor’s losses cannot be accounted by the debtor, especially if the judge’s decision isn’t carried out properly. The debtor must pay all debts and interest immediately or return the collateral. If the collateral has already transferred and the debtor failed to find and hand it over, the debtor may be subject to criminal sanctions in the form of embezzlement.