{"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_0027.txt","chunk_index":27,"documents_referenced":["人民陳情案件注意事項","遷情研議相關紀錄"],"end_seconds":8265,"keywords":["京華城案","因果關係","圖利罪","明知違法","遷情研議","都發局"],"legal_issues":["「遷情研議」之法律效力及其是否屬於圖利罪中之「法令」","圖利罪之主觀構成要件（明知違法）之認定","行政程序（遷情研議）與最終利益（容積獎勵）之間是否存在因果關係"],"legal_issues_raw":["圖利罪之主觀構成要件（明知違法）之認定","「遷情研議」之法律效力及其是否屬於圖利罪中之「法令」","行政程序（遷情研議）與最終利益（容積獎勵）之間是否存在因果關係"],"participants":["林洲民","林欽榮","楊智勝","許英潔(律師)","辯方律師","邵琇珮","黃景茂"],"participants_raw":["辯方律師","林欽榮 (前副柯文哲)","林洲民 (前都發局長)","楊智勝 (都發局科長)","邵琇珮","黃景茂 (前都發局長)","許英潔 (律師)"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0027","session_date":"2025-12-19","session_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":7965,"summary":"辯方針對京華城案中關於「遷情研議」是否構成圖利罪進行辯論。主張都發局當時的公務員（含局長、副市長及科長）均認為遷情研議並無違法，且該程序並非首次執行，並質疑檢方僅認定當時的局長黃景茂「明知違法」缺乏證據支持。辯方強調該注意事項不屬於圖利罪中的「法令」，且研議結果與後續容積獎勵之間無因果關係，不應構成圖利罪。","video_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","raw_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/raw/chunk_0027.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/cleaned/chunk_0027.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0027","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0027/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0027/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0027/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"}}