{"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_0031.txt","chunk_index":31,"documents_referenced":["協議書","案卷第137頁"],"end_seconds":9445,"keywords":["公益回饋","圖利罪","密室逼供","建制成本","結果犯","農結","鑽石級綠建築"],"legal_issues":["公益回饋之認定：建制成本（綠建築、耐震、公益設施）是否應視為公益回饋而非單純建築成本。","圖利罪之構成要件（結果犯之認定）：是否已實際獲得利益（農結/利益之取得）。","程序正義：質疑密室逼供、過度傳喚及檢方權力濫用。"],"legal_issues_raw":["圖利罪之構成要件（結果犯之認定）：是否已實際獲得利益（農結/利益之取得）。","公益回饋之認定：建制成本（綠建築、耐震、公益設施）是否應視為公益回饋而非單純建築成本。","程序正義：質疑密室逼供、過度傳喚及檢方權力濫用。"],"participants":["審靜靜","廖昀","彭振聲","柯文哲","辯方律師","邵琇珮","陳世力"],"participants_raw":["辯方律師","廖昀檢察官 (被提及)","陳世力檢察官 (被提及)","彭振聲 (被提及)","邵琇珮 (被提及)","審靜靜 (被提及)","柯文哲 (被提及)"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0031","session_date":"2025-12-24","session_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":9145,"summary":"辯方針對檢方將「建制成本」誤認為「建築成本」提出反駁，強調鑽石級綠建築、耐震標準及公益設施（如認養公園、充電車位）均屬對區域的公益回饋。同時，辯方主張本案不構成圖利罪，因被告尚未取得標章及使用執照（農結），並未實際獲得利益，僅屬不法未遂。最後，辯方抨擊檢方在偵查過程中存在密室逼供、過度傳喚及選擇性起訴等不公平對待，質疑其追求的「公平正義」與實際程序相悖。","video_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","raw_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/raw/chunk_0031.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/cleaned/chunk_0031.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0031","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0031/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0031/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0031/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"}}