{"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_0005.txt","chunk_index":5,"documents_referenced":["110年最高法院大法庭裁定","《貪汙治罪條例》第五條第一項第三款","《貪汙治罪條例》第五條第一項第五款","最高法院108年台上字第2555號判決"],"end_seconds":1775,"keywords":["不違背職務收賄","中項同一性","民意代表","罪刑法定","起訴法條變更","違背職務"],"legal_issues":["「職務上行為」與「違背職務」之定義與判斷標準","三段論中「中項同一性」之邏輯推論問題","法律適用是否違反罪刑法定主義及構成要件明確性原則","起訴法條是否適用正確（《貪汙治罪條例》第五條第一項第五款之違背職務收賄 vs. 第三款之不違背職務收賄）"],"legal_issues_raw":["起訴法條是否適用正確（《貪汙治罪條例》第五條第一項第五款之違背職務收賄 vs. 第三款之不違背職務收賄）","「職務上行為」與「違背職務」之定義與判斷標準","法律適用是否違反罪刑法定主義及構成要件明確性原則","三段論中「中項同一性」之邏輯推論問題"],"participants":["何","李靜龍","林靜遠","辯護人"],"participants_raw":["辯護人","何法官","林靜遠檢察官","李靜龍檢察官"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0005","session_date":"2025-12-24","session_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":1475,"summary":"辯護人針對本案起訴法條之適用提出異議，主張檢察官將「統一行為」擴張解釋為「違背職務」違反邏輯與法理，且與最高法院大法庭裁定及相關檢察官（林靜遠、李靜龍）對民意代表於議場外行為應適用《貪汙治罪條例》第五條第一項第三款（不違背職務收賄）之見解相矛盾。辯護人請求法官變更起訴法條，並引用最高法院判決強調「違背職務」應以是否有違反法規範要求為判斷標準。","video_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","raw_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/raw/chunk_0005.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/cleaned/chunk_0005.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0005","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0005/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0005/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0005/cleaned","session":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/sessions/HXqeVOdrDrs","case":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/cases/113年度金訴字第51號"}}