{"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_0013.txt","chunk_index":13,"documents_referenced":["120284號文（回覆件）","各級都市計畫委員會組織規程（第二條）","最高法院判決（關於圖利罪之四要素）","臺北市政府受理人民陳情事件注意事項","行政程序法第224條","都市計畫法"],"end_seconds":4135,"keywords":["京華城案","圖利罪","研議案","行政訴訟","都委會","都市計畫變更","都發局"],"legal_issues":["「陳情案件注意事項」是否屬於《貪汙治罪條例》所指之法令","圖利罪之構成要件分析（主管監督業務、違背法令、明知違法、相當因果關係）","行政程序法第224條之適用","都委會與都發局之職權分工（審議案與研議案之區別）"],"legal_issues_raw":["圖利罪之構成要件分析（主管監督業務、違背法令、明知違法、相當因果關係）","都委會與都發局之職權分工（審議案與研議案之區別）","行政程序法第224條之適用","「陳情案件注意事項」是否屬於《貪汙治罪條例》所指之法令"],"participants":["少修佩","彭振聲","林中敏","林欽榮","楊智勝","辯護人","郭文貴"],"participants_raw":["辯護人","林中敏","少修佩","彭振聲","楊智勝","郭文貴","林欽榮"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0013","session_date":"2025-12-19","session_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":3835,"summary":"辯方針對被告是否觸犯圖利罪進行辯護，主張本案不符合圖利罪的四項構成要件。重點在於強調都市計畫的審議權限屬於都委會而非都發局或被告個人，且相關研議案不具法律效果，不構成違背法令。同時指出多位相關人員（如彭振聲、林欽榮等）均認為程序合法，且所謂的「陳情案件注意事項」不屬於法律定義之法令，因此被告主觀上並無明知違法之意圖。","video_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","raw_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/raw/chunk_0013.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/cleaned/chunk_0013.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0013","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0013/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0013/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0013/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"}}