{"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:2021:25 - Oikeudenk\u00e4yntimenettely","type":"rich","width":600,"height":338,"html":"<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"lgRhDz78vZ\"><a href=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/kko202125-oikeudenkayntimenettely\/\">KKO:2021:25 &#8211; Oikeudenk\u00e4yntimenettely<\/a><\/blockquote><iframe sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" src=\"https:\/\/kohenavocats.com\/zh-hans\/jurisprudences\/kko202125-oikeudenkayntimenettely\/embed\/#?secret=lgRhDz78vZ\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" title=\"\u300a KKO:2021:25 &#8211; Oikeudenk\u00e4yntimenettely \u300b\u2014Ma\u00eetre Hassan Kohen, avocat en droit p\u00e9nal \u00e0 Paris\" data-secret=\"lgRhDz78vZ\" 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 oli k\u00e4r\u00e4j\u00e4oikeudessa tuomittu t\u00f6rke\u00e4st\u00e4 velallisen ep\u00e4rehellisyydest\u00e4 vankeusrangaistukseen ja velvoitettu suorittamaan konkurssipes\u00e4lle vahingonkorvausta. Syytt\u00e4j\u00e4n valitettua hovioikeuteen A teki vastavalituksen, jossa h\u00e4n vaati, ett\u00e4 syyte hyl\u00e4t\u00e4\u00e4n ja h\u00e4net vapautetaan korvausvelvollisuudesta. Vastavalituksessa esitetty vaatimus vahingonkorvauksen muuttamisesta kohdistui konkurssipes\u00e4\u00e4n eik\u00e4 alkuper\u00e4isen valituksen tehneeseen syytt\u00e4j\u00e4\u00e4n. Vastavalitus j\u00e4tettiin t\u00e4m\u00e4n vaatimuksen osalta tutkimatta. (\u00c4\u00e4n.) OK 25 luku 14 a \u00a7 A..."}