{"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_0029.txt","chunk_index":29,"documents_referenced":["監察院101年專案調查研究報告","臺北市都市計畫施行自治條例第25條","辯護人準備之PPT證據資料"],"end_seconds":8855,"keywords":["容積獎勵","法律保留","細部計畫","補充辯論","論告"],"legal_issues":["20%容積獎勵金的法源依據是否合法","法律保留原則與自治條例之適用","都市計畫法透過細部計畫給予容積獎勵之合法性"],"legal_issues_raw":["20%容積獎勵金的法源依據是否合法","都市計畫法透過細部計畫給予容積獎勵之合法性","法律保留原則與自治條例之適用"],"participants":["廖威治律師（辯護人）","廖文欽","書記官","未具名，企業"],"participants_raw":["被告（未具名，企業代表）","廖威治律師（辯護人）","廖文欽檢察官（被提及）","書記官"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0029","session_date":"2025-12-24","session_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":8555,"summary":"本段逐字稿記錄了一場刑事庭審過程。被告對調查過程表達強烈不滿，認為法院與檢察官忽略了企業已發布的公告及相關證據，指控其審理不公且存在惡意攻擊。隨後，辯護人廖威治律師針對檢察官關於「20%獎勵金」法源依據的論告進行反駁，主張該容積獎勵有監察院報告及《臺北市都市計畫施行自治條例》第25條作為合法依據，批評檢察官刻意忽略證據。","video_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","raw_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/raw/chunk_0029.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/cleaned/chunk_0029.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0029","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0029/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0029/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0029/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"}}