{"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_0018.txt","chunk_index":18,"documents_referenced":["9月13日之偵查筆錄","相關錄音檔","行政法院關於103年西部計畫修正案之判決/認定"],"end_seconds":5610,"keywords":["京華城案","共識決","程序合法性","筆錄扭曲","都委會","都發局"],"legal_issues":["公務員執行職務是否涉及明知違法而為之","筆錄記載是否與實際陳述相符（筆錄真實性與扭曲之爭議）","都委會決議程序是否合法（共識決與表決之爭議）"],"legal_issues_raw":["都委會決議程序是否合法（共識決與表決之爭議）","筆錄記載是否與實際陳述相符（筆錄真實性與扭曲之爭議）","公務員執行職務是否涉及明知違法而為之"],"participants":["吳順民","徐國誠","柯文哲","檢察官","白仁德(教授)","胡芳強","蔡麗瑞","郭太","黃景茂"],"participants_raw":["黃景茂 (都發局長)","柯文哲 (柯文哲)","檢察官","胡芳強","蔡麗瑞","郭太 (提及)","白仁德 (教授)","徐國誠","吳順民 (提及)"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0018","session_date":"2025-12-19","session_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":5310,"summary":"本段文字主要討論京華城案中都委會決議程序的合法性，以及對筆錄記載真實性的質疑。辯方引用行政法院對103年西部計畫修正案之認定，主張都委會採取「共識決」且給予委員發言機會，屬合理程序。同時，針對都發局長黃景茂的筆錄，指出其在錄音中多次否認違法，但筆錄卻被記載為「知道有違法但仍奉命推進」，質疑檢方扭曲筆錄內容，對被告不公平。","video_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","raw_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/raw/chunk_0018.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/cleaned/chunk_0018.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0018","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0018/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0018/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0018/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"}}