{"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_0038.txt","chunk_index":38,"documents_referenced":["102年調查報告","105年監察院糾正案文","起訴書","都市計畫法"],"end_seconds":11510,"keywords":["京華城案","公益性","判斷餘地","對價性","細部計畫","都委會","都發局"],"legal_issues":["不確定法律概念之「判斷餘地」與裁量權之區分","公務員審查權是否遭非法壓縮（職權干預之認定）","細部計畫中「對價性」、「公益性」之審查權限歸屬（都發局 vs. 都委會）"],"legal_issues_raw":["公務員審查權是否遭非法壓縮（職權干預之認定）","細部計畫中「對價性」、「公益性」之審查權限歸屬（都發局 vs. 都委會）","不確定法律概念之「判斷餘地」與裁量權之區分"],"participants":["李德全","楊智盛","檢察官","辯護律師（發言者）","邵琇珮","黃景茂"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師（發言者）","黃景茂（被告/提及對象）","邵琇珮（證人/提及對象）","楊智盛（證人/提及對象）","李德全（提及對象）","檢察官（提及對象）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0038","session_date":"2025-12-19","session_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":11210,"summary":"辯方針對京華城案中黃景茂被指控「壓縮公務員審查權」及「對價性審查」之爭議進行辯護。主張黃景茂採取慎重處理方式而非施壓，且相關承辦人已證稱未受干擾。同時強調「對價性」、「公益性」等實質審查權限屬於合議制的都委會，而非都發局，都發局僅負責形式審查與程序引導，不應將都委會的判斷餘地歸咎於都發局首長。","video_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","raw_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/raw/chunk_0038.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/cleaned/chunk_0038.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0038","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0038/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0038/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0038/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"}}