{"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_0031.txt","chunk_index":31,"documents_referenced":["三立新聞台新聞 (107年5月)","李文宗與張哲彥之通訊訊息 (108年5月27日、6月26日)","檢證12 (關於精華沈案之紀錄)","蔡壁如之筆錄","蔡壁如與李文宗之通訊訊息","補充理由書","論告書"],"end_seconds":9445,"keywords":["交接","介入市政","城會","精華沈案","證據能力"],"legal_issues":["被告是否介入臺北市政府都發局業務及安排城會之行為是否構成介入市政","被告是否參與或接手「精華沈案」之事實認定","被告是否擔任柯文哲辦公室主任之身分認定"],"legal_issues_raw":["被告是否擔任柯文哲辦公室主任之身分認定","被告是否參與或接手「精華沈案」之事實認定","被告是否介入臺北市政府都發局業務及安排城會之行為是否構成介入市政"],"participants":["張哲彥","彭振聲","李文宗","柯文哲","蔡壁如","辯方律師"],"participants_raw":["辯方律師","李文宗","蔡壁如","彭振聲","張哲彥","柯文哲"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"DS56afN36A8:chunk_0031","session_date":"2025-12-22","session_id":"DS56afN36A8","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":9145,"summary":"辯方針對李文宗是否介入市政及參與「精華沈案」進行辯護。首先澄清與洪中盛、黃清勇、郭旭東及李文娟的關係，否認其擔任市長辦公室主任之說法，並質疑檢方引用之新聞證據之時效性與正確性。針對「精華沈案」之交接，辯方透過對話紀錄證明李文宗明確表示未參與且該案已交接給彭振聲，且檢方證據（檢證12）中並無李文宗之名。最後針對介入市政之指控，辯方主張僅有兩則轉達訊息，且實際處理人為當時的秘書長張哲彥，不應認定為介入市政。","video_id":"DS56afN36A8","raw_text_key":"text/DS56afN36A8/raw/chunk_0031.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/DS56afN36A8/cleaned/chunk_0031.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/DS56afN36A8:chunk_0031","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/DS56afN36A8:chunk_0031/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/DS56afN36A8:chunk_0031/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/DS56afN36A8:chunk_0031/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"}}