{"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_0034.txt","chunk_index":34,"documents_referenced":["監察院糾正文","臺北市政府都委會作業要點","臺北市都市計畫施行細則第五條、第六條、第七條","都市計畫法第二十三條第二項","都市計畫法第二十四條","都市計畫法第十九條"],"end_seconds":10330,"keywords":["刑事追訴","容積獎勵","形式審查","正當法律程序","法律保留原則","都市計畫委員會","都發局"],"legal_issues":["公務員之刑事責任免除標準","公務員在都市計畫審查中的職責範圍（形式審查 vs. 實質審查）","容積獎勵是否違反法律保留原則","都市計畫審議過程是否符合正當法律程序"],"legal_issues_raw":["容積獎勵是否違反法律保留原則","都市計畫審議過程是否符合正當法律程序","公務員在都市計畫審查中的職責範圍（形式審查 vs. 實質審查）","公務員之刑事責任免除標準"],"participants":["少秀配","彭振聲","檢察官","福芳瓊","辯方（發言者）"],"participants_raw":["辯方（發言者）","檢察官（被提及）","福芳瓊（都委會記，被提及）","彭振聲（被提及）","少秀配（被提及）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0034","session_date":"2025-12-24","session_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":10030,"summary":"本段文字主要在辯論都市計畫容積獎勵之合法性與公務員審查責任。辯方主張都委會的組織章程、審議流程（包含公展、收集意見、專家討論及表決）完全符合法律保留原則與正當法律程序。針對檢察官提出的公務員審查義務，辯方引用監察院之見解及都市計畫施行細則，主張都發局僅具形式審查權，而實質審議權在於都委會，因此相關公務員之行為不應構成刑事責任。","video_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","raw_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/raw/chunk_0034.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/cleaned/chunk_0034.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0034","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0034/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0034/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0034/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"}}