{"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_0036.txt","chunk_index":36,"documents_referenced":["監察院糾正意旨","第一版及第二版公展草案","都市計畫法令"],"end_seconds":10920,"keywords":["公展","合理信賴原則","土地罪","專家學者諮詢會議","京華城","義務性獎勵","都發局"],"legal_issues":["公務員之合理信賴原則","公務員於送件公展之行政處分是否構成刑事犯罪 (土地罪)","獎勵專案適用之合法性與實務操作之合理性","行政機關於都市計畫審查中要求修改之權限界限","都發局召開專家諮詢會議之權限與義務"],"legal_issues_raw":["都發局召開專家諮詢會議之權限與義務","公務員於送件公展之行政處分是否構成刑事犯罪 (土地罪)","行政機關於都市計畫審查中要求修改之權限界限","獎勵專案適用之合法性與實務操作之合理性","公務員之合理信賴原則"],"participants":["李德權","楊智勝","檢方","邵琇珮","都委會","都發局都規科","黃景茂"],"participants_raw":["邵琇珮 (專家學者/證人)","楊智勝","黃景茂 (都發局局長)","李德權","都發局都規科總工程師","都委會委員","檢方"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0036","session_date":"2025-12-19","session_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":10620,"summary":"本段文字旨在辯護都發局在京華城案中召開專家學者諮詢會議及送件公展之合法性。主張召開諮詢會議係基於專業建議與溝通，而非法律義務；且在經過修改（如扣除義務性獎勵、增加公益回饋）後，相關專業人員認為已符合刑事要件之合法性，故送公展並非違法。同時針對獎勵專案之適用，說明係基於實務操作可行性而參考既有法令體系，否認具有土地罪之構成要件。","video_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","raw_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/raw/chunk_0036.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/cleaned/chunk_0036.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0036","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0036/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0036/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0036/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"}}