{"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_0017.txt","chunk_index":17,"documents_referenced":["7834 號會議紀錄/發言記錄","最高行政法院 108 年字第 1 號判決","都委會組織章程","高等行政法院相關判決 (關於 103 年都市計畫變更案)"],"end_seconds":5315,"keywords":["京華城","共識決","判斷餘地","圖利罪","都委會","都市計畫修正案","重要性原則"],"legal_issues":["圖利罪之構成要件是否須違背明確法令（而非僅違背法理或重要性原則）","委員會決議採取「共識決」而非「表決」是否符合法定程序","行政機關在都市計畫變更中之「判斷餘地」是否受司法審查"],"legal_issues_raw":["圖利罪之構成要件是否須違背明確法令（而非僅違背法理或重要性原則）","行政機關在都市計畫變更中之「判斷餘地」是否受司法審查","委員會決議採取「共識決」而非「表決」是否符合法定程序"],"participants":["彭振聲","林欽榮","檢察官","白仁德","辯方律師/","都委會委員(13名)"],"participants_raw":["辯方律師/發言人","檢察官 (被提及)","彭振聲 (都委會主委/副柯文哲)","林欽榮 (前副柯文哲/被提及)","白仁德 (證人/被提及)","都委會委員 (13名)"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0017","session_date":"2025-12-19","session_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":5015,"summary":"辯方針對京華城都市計畫修正案之圖利罪指控進行辯護。重點在於主張圖利罪必須違背「法令」而非僅是「法理」或不確定的「重要性原則」；並引用最高行政法院及高等行政法院之判例，說明都市計畫之專業判斷具有「判斷餘地」且不受司法審查。針對檢方質疑會議表決程序不合法，辯方主張都委會採取的是「共識決」而非形式投票，此做法符合過往實務及行政法院之認定，並舉證會議中委員均有發言且由主委總結決議。","video_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","raw_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/raw/chunk_0017.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/cleaned/chunk_0017.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0017","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0017/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0017/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0017/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"}}