{"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_0029.txt","chunk_index":29,"documents_referenced":["偵查筆錄","內政部函令","監察院糾正案文","監察院調查報告","訊問錄影"],"end_seconds":8855,"keywords":["偵查瑕疵","容積獎勵","筆錄任意性","京華城案","軍院審理","都市計畫法第24條"],"legal_issues":["偵查筆錄之真實性與任意性（質疑是否存在逼問或誤導）","細部計畫變更給予容積獎勵之合法性","都市計畫法第24條是否可作為給予容積獎勵之合法依據"],"legal_issues_raw":["偵查筆錄之真實性與任意性（質疑是否存在逼問或誤導）","都市計畫法第24條是否可作為給予容積獎勵之合法依據","細部計畫變更給予容積獎勵之合法性"],"participants":["劉秀玲","審判長合議庭","張立立","彭振聲","胡芳瓊","辯護人","黃景茂"],"participants_raw":["辯護人","胡芳瓊","張立立","劉秀玲","黃景茂","彭振聲","審判長合議庭"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0029","session_date":"2025-12-19","session_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":8555,"summary":"辯護方針對偵查階段筆錄的真實性提出質疑，主張證人（如胡芳瓊、彭振聲、黃景茂、劉秀玲）在偵查時因壓力、不理解問題或檢察官誘導而導致筆錄與事實不符，並對比軍院審理時證人證言的任意性與真實性較高。同時，針對都市計畫法第24條給予容積獎勵的合法性，引用相關證人（張立立、劉秀玲、邵秀玲）之見解，主張該做法在法律上可行。","video_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","raw_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/raw/chunk_0029.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/cleaned/chunk_0029.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0029","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0029/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0029/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0029/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"}}