{"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_0030.txt","chunk_index":30,"documents_referenced":["李文宗與董靜業之通訊訊息 (已證九)","柯文哲刑事例 (檢證八 / 已證九)","臺北市政府捷運局網頁資料 (已證五)","補充理由書","起訴書"],"end_seconds":9150,"keywords":["刑事例","北捷董事長","柯文哲辦公室主任","證人證詞","身分認定"],"legal_issues":["被告李文宗的實際職稱與權限認定","證據之關聯性與真實性（針對通訊訊息與刑事例之認定）"],"legal_issues_raw":["被告李文宗的實際職稱與權限認定","證據之關聯性與真實性（針對通訊訊息與刑事例之認定）"],"participants":["朱亞虎","李文宗","柯文哲","檢察官","董靜業","蔡壁如","辯方律師"],"participants_raw":["辯方律師","李文宗 (被提及)","柯文哲 (被提及)","蔡壁如 (被提及)","朱亞虎 (被提及)","董靜業 (被提及)","檢察官 (被提及)"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"DS56afN36A8:chunk_0030","session_date":"2025-12-22","session_id":"DS56afN36A8","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":8850,"summary":"辯方針對李文宗是否擔任過市長辦公室主任一事進行辯論，主張檢方指控其為「市長分身」或「辦公室主任」缺乏證據。辯方透過蔡壁如、朱亞虎的證詞，以及刑事例、通訊訊息等證據，證明李文宗在相關期間的身分僅為「顧問」或「北捷董事長」，而非辦公室主任。","video_id":"DS56afN36A8","raw_text_key":"text/DS56afN36A8/raw/chunk_0030.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/DS56afN36A8/cleaned/chunk_0030.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/DS56afN36A8:chunk_0030","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/DS56afN36A8:chunk_0030/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/DS56afN36A8:chunk_0030/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/DS56afN36A8:chunk_0030/cleaned","session":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/sessions/DS56afN36A8","case":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/cases/113年度金訴字第51號"}}