{"case_id":"113年度金訴字第51號","case_number":"113年度金訴字第51號","chunk_filename":"chunk_0012.txt","chunk_index":12,"documents_referenced":["臺北/高雄行政法院相關判決 (關於細部計畫之性質)","行政訴訟法 (109年1月15日修正版)","都市計畫法 (第22條、第24條、第27條)","釋字第 742 號解釋"],"end_seconds":3840,"keywords":["圖書罪","容積","法規命令","細部計畫","行政處分","行政訴訟法","都市計畫審查程序"],"legal_issues":["本案是否構成圖書罪（土地罪）之刑事責任","檢察官是否有權限審查自治命令（細部計畫）之違法性","行政訴訟法關於都市計畫審查程序之修法適用","都市計畫細部計畫之法律性質（法規命令 vs. 行政處分）"],"legal_issues_raw":["都市計畫細部計畫之法律性質（法規命令 vs. 行政處分）","行政訴訟法關於都市計畫審查程序之修法適用","檢察官是否有權限審查自治命令（細部計畫）之違法性","本案是否構成圖書罪（土地罪）之刑事責任"],"participants":["林欽榮","檢察官","辯護律師","黃景茂"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師","檢察官 (被提及)","黃景茂 (被告/前臺北市都市計畫局長)","林欽榮 (被提及)"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0012","session_date":"2025-12-19","session_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":3540,"summary":"辯方針對本案涉及的都市計畫細部計畫之法律性質進行辯論，主張根據德國法理及台灣行政訴訟法於109年1月15日的修正（增訂都市計畫審查程序），細部計畫應定性為「法規命令」而非「行政處分」。因此，辯方認為檢察官主張細部計畫違法之論點，係違反權限分配，不應在刑事訴訟中由檢察官單方面認定自治命令之違法性，並進而討論本案作為圖書罪（土地罪）之構成要件。","video_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","raw_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/raw/chunk_0012.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/cleaned/chunk_0012.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0012","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0012/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0012/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0012/cleaned","session":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/sessions/7SD1Ue5QAiE","case":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/cases/113年度金訴字第51號"}}