{"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_0039.txt","chunk_index":39,"documents_referenced":["偵查筆錄/公訴書","勘驗紀錄","大灣北段案之回饋金公式/前例"],"end_seconds":11805,"keywords":["京華城","住宅使用","偵查與審判對比","容積獎勵","明知","都委會"],"legal_issues":["偵查階段證詞與審判階段事實之落差","公務員與都委會委員之主觀明知（故意）認定標準","容積獎勵與放寬住宅使用之法律區分","起訴標準之公平性與一致性"],"legal_issues_raw":["容積獎勵與放寬住宅使用之法律區分","偵查階段證詞與審判階段事實之落差","公務員與都委會委員之主觀明知（故意）認定標準","起訴標準之公平性與一致性"],"participants":["彭振聲","林洲民","檢方","辯護律師","邵琇珮","都委會委員及公務員","黃景茂"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師","黃景茂 (被告)","林洲民 (證人)","邵琇珮 (相關人員)","彭振聲 (相關人員)","檢方","都委會委員及公務員"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0039","session_date":"2025-12-19","session_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":11505,"summary":"辯方針對京華城案之容積獎勵爭議進行辯論。首先區分「申請放寬作為住宅使用」與「申請容積獎勵」之法律性質完全不同，反駁承辦人員將兩者混淆之做法。其次，質疑檢方在偵查與審判階段之主張前後矛盾，並主張證人黃景茂被轉為被告之基礎已不存在。最後，針對都委會其他委員與公務員未被起訴之現象，質疑檢方在認定「明知」違法之標準上對被告黃景茂採取雙重標準。","video_id":"7SD1Ue5QAiE","raw_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/raw/chunk_0039.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/7SD1Ue5QAiE/cleaned/chunk_0039.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0039","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0039/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0039/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/7SD1Ue5QAiE:chunk_0039/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"}}