{"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_0023.txt","chunk_index":23,"documents_referenced":["保全證據申請書","偵查筆錄","協議書"],"end_seconds":7085,"keywords":["京華城","偵查還原","耐震建築","證據保全","適法性審查","錄音筆"],"legal_issues":["偵查筆錄之真實性與證據保全（錄音筆證據申請）","建築獎勵（宜居城市）之獲利計算與成本抵銷","行政機關（都發局、都委會）之適法性審查義務"],"legal_issues_raw":["建築獎勵（宜居城市）之獲利計算與成本抵銷","行政機關（都發局、都委會）之適法性審查義務","偵查筆錄之真實性與證據保全（錄音筆證據申請）"],"participants":["公衛文","彭振聲","林俊炎","法官（合議庭）","辯方律師","邵琇珮","黃景茂"],"participants_raw":["辯方律師","法官（合議庭）","林俊炎（檢察官）","黃景茂","彭振聲","邵琇珮","公衛文"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0023","session_date":"2025-12-24","session_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":6785,"summary":"辯方針對京華城案提出多項主張：首先在經濟利益上，強調耐震建築成本高昂且有保證金壓力，認為獲利被誇大且實際可能虧損；其次反駁都發局未進行適法性審查的指控，主張審查強度雖有差異但並非未審查；最後針對偵查過程，表達對未能保全書記官錄音筆證據的遺憾，認為該證據能還原被刪減或篡改的偵查真相。","video_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","raw_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/raw/chunk_0023.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/cleaned/chunk_0023.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0023","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0023/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0023/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0023/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"}}