{"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_0001.txt","chunk_index":1,"documents_referenced":["監察院民國 105 年調查報告","監察院民國 110 年糾正案","臺北高等行政法院民國 107 年訴字第 1206 號判決"],"end_seconds":595,"keywords":["一次性保障","京華城案","信賴保護原則","圖利罪","容積率","都市計畫"],"legal_issues":["京華城土地 120,284 平方公尺之樓地板面積保障是否為一次性保障","圖利罪之成立與否","行政法院判決對法令解釋之拘束力","都市計畫細部計畫是否違反法律保留原則、都市更新條例及平等原則"],"legal_issues_raw":["圖利罪之成立與否","都市計畫細部計畫是否違反法律保留原則、都市更新條例及平等原則","京華城土地 120,284 平方公尺之樓地板面積保障是否為一次性保障","行政法院判決對法令解釋之拘束力"],"participants":["沈慶京","柯文哲","檢察官","法官","辯護人"],"participants_raw":["檢察官","法官","柯文哲 (被告)","沈慶京 (被告)","辯護人"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0001","session_date":"2025-12-15","session_id":"CXKiBIamLC4","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":295,"summary":"檢察官針對京華城案中柯文哲、沈慶京等人涉嫌圖利罪進行論告。重點在於分析京華城土地容積率之爭議，說明民國 80 年之樓地板面積保障（120,284 平方公尺）應為一次性保障，且臺北高等行政法院已於民國 109 年判決認定該保障不適用於後續開發，以此論證後續細部計畫之違法性及被告之主觀、客觀不法。","video_id":"CXKiBIamLC4","raw_text_key":"text/CXKiBIamLC4/raw/chunk_0001.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/CXKiBIamLC4/cleaned/chunk_0001.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0001","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0001/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0001/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/CXKiBIamLC4:chunk_0001/cleaned","session":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/sessions/CXKiBIamLC4","case":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/cases/113年度金訴字第51號"}}