{"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_0026.txt","chunk_index":26,"documents_referenced":["LINE對話紀錄","證人證述","起訴書","都市更新條例","都市計畫法第二十四條","錄音譯文"],"end_seconds":7970,"keywords":["京華城","圖利罪","細部計畫變更","證據能力","都市計畫委員會","都市計畫法"],"legal_issues":["LINE對話內容之證據能力與證明力","京華城是否可依《都市計畫法》第24條提出細部計畫變更案","圖利罪之構成要件及法律依據之認定（都市計畫法 vs. 都市更新條例）","都市計畫委員會之決定是否應作為判定合理性與必要性的唯一依據"],"legal_issues_raw":["京華城是否可依《都市計畫法》第24條提出細部計畫變更案","都市計畫委員會之決定是否應作為判定合理性與必要性的唯一依據","圖利罪之構成要件及法律依據之認定（都市計畫法 vs. 都市更新條例）","LINE對話內容之證據能力與證明力"],"participants":["合議庭","劉秀玲","本席","林欽榮","楊智勝","辯護人"],"participants_raw":["本席（發言者/法官或辯方代表）","林欽榮","合議庭（審判長）","楊智勝","劉秀玲","辯護人"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0026","session_date":"2025-12-24","session_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":7670,"summary":"本段文字為法庭辯論紀錄，重點在於討論京華城案是否可依《都市計畫法》第24條提出細部計畫變更，以及都市計畫委員會的決定應優先於公務員之個人感受。辯方質疑審判長對法律依據（都市計畫法 vs. 都市更新條例）之認定有誤，並主張部分LINE對話內容雖屬傳聞但能證明當時公務員認為適用該法條並無違法，同時批評審判長過度強調公務員感受而非法律證據。","video_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","raw_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/raw/chunk_0026.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/cleaned/chunk_0026.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0026","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0026/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0026/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0026/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"}}