{"version":"1.0","provider_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","provider_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","author_name":"Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris","author_url":"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/","title":"KKO 1603\/2021 - Oikeudenk\u00e4yntimenettely","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"8NAdHdKVKH\"><a href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/kko-1603-2021-oikeudenkayntimenettely\/\">KKO 1603\/2021 &#8211; Oikeudenk\u00e4yntimenettely<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/kko-1603-2021-oikeudenkayntimenettely\/embed\/#?secret=8NAdHdKVKH\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"\u300a KKO 1603\/2021 &#8211; Oikeudenk\u00e4yntimenettely \u300b\u2014Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" data-secret=\"8NAdHdKVKH\" 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":"Syytt\u00e4j\u00e4 oli vaatinut rangaistusta liikenneturvallisuuden vaarantamisesta sill\u00e4 perusteella, ett\u00e4 vastaaja oli tahallaan rikkonut tieliikennelakia. K\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus ei ollut katsonut vastaajan menetelleen tahallaan, mutta oli tuominnut t\u00e4m\u00e4n liikenneturvallisuuden vaarantamisesta, koska se on rangaistavaa my\u00f6s tuottamuksellisena. Kysymys siit\u00e4, olisiko hovioikeuden tullut my\u00f6nt\u00e4\u00e4 vastaajalle jatkok\u00e4sittelylupa."}