{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","provider_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","author_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","author_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/","title":"KKO:2025:53 - Oikeudenk\u00e4yntimenettely","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Cl6zDj4YYP\"><a href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/kko202553-oikeudenkayntimenettely\/\">KKO:2025:53 &#8211; Oikeudenk\u00e4yntimenettely<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/en\/jurisprudences\/kko202553-oikeudenkayntimenettely\/embed\/#?secret=Cl6zDj4YYP\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"&#8220;KKO:2025:53 &#8211; Oikeudenk\u00e4yntimenettely&#8221; &#8212; Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" data-secret=\"Cl6zDj4YYP\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\"><\/iframe><script>\n\/*! This file is auto-generated *\/\n!function(d,l){\"use strict\";l.querySelector&&d.addEventListener&&\"undefined\"!=typeof URL&&(d.wp=d.wp||{},d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage||(d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage=function(e){var t=e.data;if((t||t.secret||t.message||t.value)&&!\/[^a-zA-Z0-9]\/.test(t.secret)){for(var s,r,n,a=l.querySelectorAll('iframe[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),o=l.querySelectorAll('blockquote[data-secret=\"'+t.secret+'\"]'),c=new RegExp(\"^https?:$\",\"i\"),i=0;i<o.length;i++)o[i].style.display=\"none\";for(i=0;i<a.length;i++)s=a[i],e.source===s.contentWindow&&(s.removeAttribute(\"style\"),\"height\"===t.message?(1e3<(r=parseInt(t.value,10))?r=1e3:~~r<200&&(r=200),s.height=r):\"link\"===t.message&&(r=new URL(s.getAttribute(\"src\")),n=new URL(t.value),c.test(n.protocol))&&n.host===r.host&&l.activeElement===s&&(d.top.location.href=t.value))}},d.addEventListener(\"message\",d.wp.receiveEmbedMessage,!1),l.addEventListener(\"DOMContentLoaded\",function(){for(var e,t,s=l.querySelectorAll(\"iframe.wp-embedded-content\"),r=0;r<s.length;r++)(t=(e=s[r]).getAttribute(\"data-secret\"))||(t=Math.random().toString(36).substring(2,12),e.src+=\"#?secret=\"+t,e.setAttribute(\"data-secret\",t)),e.contentWindow.postMessage({message:\"ready\",secret:t},\"*\")},!1)))}(window,document);\n\/\/# sourceURL=https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/wp-includes\/js\/wp-embed.min.js\n<\/script>\n","description":"Vastaaja oli kutsuttu k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeuden p\u00e4\u00e4k\u00e4sittelyyn oikeudenk\u00e4ynnist\u00e4 rikosasioissa annetun lain 8 luvun 11 \u00a7:n 1 momentin nojalla uhalla, ett\u00e4 asia voidaan tutkia ja ratkaista h\u00e4nen poissaolostaan huolimatta ja ett\u00e4 t\u00e4ll\u00f6in voidaan tuomita enint\u00e4\u00e4n kolmen kuukauden vankeusrangaistus. Vastaaja oli henkil\u00f6kohtaisesti j\u00e4\u00e4nyt pois p\u00e4\u00e4k\u00e4sittelyst\u00e4, mutta h\u00e4nt\u00e4 oli siell\u00e4 edustanut asiamies. K\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus oli tuominnut vastaajan t\u00e4m\u00e4n syyksi luetuista rikoksista..."}