{"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_0032.txt","chunk_index":32,"documents_referenced":["最高行政法院103年台至1321號","最高行政法院市至148號","最高行政法院市至156號","最高行政法院市至742號","行政訴訟法（關於都市計畫審查程序之專章）"],"end_seconds":9740,"keywords":["容積獎勵","權利救濟","法規命令","行政處分","西部計畫","都市計畫","雙重標準"],"legal_issues":["公務員執行職務之責任與土地罪之追訴","容積獎勵之給予是否需有法律明文規定","誣陷罪之構成要件（是否需有誣陷結果）","都市計畫之救濟權利與行政訴訟法之適用","都市計畫（西部計畫）之法律性質（法規命令 vs 行政處分）"],"legal_issues_raw":["誣陷罪之構成要件（是否需有誣陷結果）","都市計畫（西部計畫）之法律性質（法規命令 vs 行政處分）","容積獎勵之給予是否需有法律明文規定","公務員執行職務之責任與土地罪之追訴","都市計畫之救濟權利與行政訴訟法之適用"],"participants":["應曉薇","檢察官","法官（庭上）","辯護人"],"participants_raw":["辯護人","檢察官","法官（庭上）","應曉薇"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0032","session_date":"2025-12-24","session_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":9440,"summary":"辯護人針對檢察官的補充論告進行反駁，質疑檢察官在處理本案時採取雙重標準且缺乏關鍵證據，並就「西部計畫」的法律性質（行政處分或法規命令）以及容積獎勵的合法性，引用最高行政法院之相關判決（如市至742號、市至156號及103年台至1321號）進行法律論證，主張檢察官對都市計畫救濟之法律見解已過時，請求法院判決無罪。","video_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","raw_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/raw/chunk_0032.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/cleaned/chunk_0032.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0032","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0032/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0032/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0032/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"}}