{"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_0021.txt","chunk_index":21,"documents_referenced":["9月9日之證人傳票","司法院關於行政訴訟調解制度之海報","都委會會議紀錄/直播內容"],"end_seconds":6495,"keywords":["京華城案","行政和解","證人轉被告","貪汙治罪條例","起訴標準","都委會"],"legal_issues":["公務員執行職務之合法性與責任歸屬（京華城案）","證人身分轉為被告之程序正義問題","貪汙治罪條例之適用","起訴標準之一致性與公平性"],"legal_issues_raw":["證人身分轉為被告之程序正義問題","貪汙治罪條例之適用","公務員執行職務之合法性與責任歸屬（京華城案）","起訴標準之一致性與公平性"],"participants":["劉秀玲","彭振聲","律師（發言者）","柯文哲","檢察官","黃景茂"],"participants_raw":["律師（發言者）","黃景茂（被告）","柯文哲（提及）","檢察官（提及）","劉秀玲（提及）","彭振聲（提及）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0021","session_date":"2025-12-19","session_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":6195,"summary":"本段逐字稿主要為辯方律師針對被告黃景茂之陳述。律師質疑檢方起訴標準不一，並詳細說明黃景茂原以證人身分受傳喚，卻在短時間內被轉為被告。針對京華城案，律師主張黃景茂僅參與3月12日的便當會，且相關決議經都委會及專家小組討論，程序合法，且黃景茂在案件後續發展前已調任，認為其被起訴係因檢方試圖透過他來追溯柯文哲的責任。","video_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","raw_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/raw/chunk_0021.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/cleaned/chunk_0021.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0021","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0021/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0021/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0021/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"}}