{"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 909\/2019 - Oikeudenk\u00e4yntimenettely","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"Cx6qi9F0yA\"><a href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/kko-909-2019-oikeudenkayntimenettely\/\">KKO 909\/2019 &#8211; Oikeudenk\u00e4yntimenettely<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/kko-909-2019-oikeudenkayntimenettely\/embed\/#?secret=Cx6qi9F0yA\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"\u300a KKO 909\/2019 &#8211; Oikeudenk\u00e4yntimenettely \u300b\u2014Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" data-secret=\"Cx6qi9F0yA\" 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":"A ja kaksi muuta tekij\u00e4\u00e4 olivat tunkeutuneet tyhjill\u00e4\u00e4n olleeseen huoltoasemarakennukseen ja irrottaneet kupariputkia seinist\u00e4. K\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus katsoi A:ta ja toista tekij\u00e4\u00e4 koskevassa tuomiossaan, ett\u00e4 rakennukselle aiheutetun vahingon m\u00e4\u00e4r\u00e4 oli noin 19 000 euroa. K\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus tuomitsi tekij\u00e4t varkauden yrityksist\u00e4 rangaistuksiin ja velvoitti heid\u00e4t suorittamaan rakennuksen omistajalle yhteisvastuullisesti vahingonkorvausta. Kolmannen tekij\u00e4n menettely\u00e4 arvioitiin my\u00f6hemmin toisessa oikeudenk\u00e4ynniss\u00e4. K\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeus totesi..."}