{"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_0006.txt","chunk_index":6,"documents_referenced":["《宣誓條例》","臺北市政府各機關提供臺北市議會及議員處理資料原則","臺灣高等法院100年度重上更二字第18號判決","起訴書"],"end_seconds":2070,"keywords":["公務活動","構成要件","民意代表","舉證責任","質詢權","違背職務"],"legal_issues":["《宣誓條例》之規範是否屬於認定違背職務之法規範依據","檢察官之舉證責任（是否就構成要件提出具體證據）","民意代表行使職權（質詢、協調、陳情、監督）與違背職務之界限","違背職務之判斷標準（是否違反法規範之命令或禁止）"],"legal_issues_raw":["違背職務之判斷標準（是否違反法規範之命令或禁止）","檢察官之舉證責任（是否就構成要件提出具體證據）","民意代表行使職權（質詢、協調、陳情、監督）與違背職務之界限","《宣誓條例》之規範是否屬於認定違背職務之法規範依據"],"participants":["劉秀玲","吳順民","張莉莉","彭振聲","朱亞虎","林之語","檢察官","苗布亞","辯護人","鄭小薇","黃景茂"],"participants_raw":["辯護人","鄭小薇 (被告)","檢察官 (提及)","苗布亞 (證人)","朱亞虎 (證人)","黃景茂 (提及)","張莉莉 (提及)","劉秀玲 (提及)","彭振聲 (提及)","吳順民 (提及)","林之語 (提及)"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0006","session_date":"2025-12-24","session_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":1770,"summary":"辯護人針對被告鄭小薇是否構成「違背職務」進行詳細辯論。辯方主張檢察官未能具體說明被告違反了哪項法規範，並逐一分析被告的19項行為（如行使質詢權、召開協調會、陳情副市長、參與便當會、要求案件進度、參加都委會及索取資料等），均屬議員正常公務活動且無法律禁止，不應認定為違背職務。同時，辯方反駁檢察官關於違反《宣誓條例》、都委會注意事項、過度關心案件及增加公務員壓力等指控，認為這些不構成法律意義上的「違背職務」。","video_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","raw_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/raw/chunk_0006.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/cleaned/chunk_0006.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0006","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0006/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0006/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0006/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"}}