{"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_0025.txt","chunk_index":25,"documents_referenced":["《貪汙治罪條例》","監察院 105 年糾正案文"],"end_seconds":7675,"keywords":["平等原則","形式審查","監察院","違背法令","都委會","都發局","預見可能性"],"legal_issues":["《貪汙治罪條例》中「違背法令」的定義是否包含概括性的「平等原則」","平等原則在行政裁量中的認定標準及其預見可能性","行政機關（都發局）對申請件之形式審查權限與都委會審議許可權之區分"],"legal_issues_raw":["《貪汙治罪條例》中「違背法令」的定義是否包含概括性的「平等原則」","行政機關（都發局）對申請件之形式審查權限與都委會審議許可權之區分","平等原則在行政裁量中的認定標準及其預見可能性"],"participants":["審判","林欽榮","檢察官","蕭律師"],"participants_raw":["蕭律師","檢察官","林欽榮 (被提及)","審判委員 (被提及)"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0025","session_date":"2025-12-24","session_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":7375,"summary":"辯方律師針對檢察官關於《貪汙治罪條例》中「違背法令」之定義進行反駁。律師主張「平等原則」不應被視為《貪汙治罪條例》所指的具體法令，且強調合理性與可行性屬於都委會的審議許可權，而非形式上的違法。律師進一步說明監察院提出糾正案之背景，旨在強調應由獨立專業機關（都委會）而非行政機關（都發局）單方面認定平等原則，以避免認知差異導致行政僵局。","video_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","raw_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/raw/chunk_0025.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/cleaned/chunk_0025.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0025","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0025/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0025/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0025/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"}}