{"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_0037.txt","chunk_index":37,"documents_referenced":["B7卷483頁（對話紀錄）","公文簽辦流程","會議錄音譯文"],"end_seconds":11215,"keywords":["京華城","南宋山","容積獎勵","對價性","證據能力","都市再生"],"legal_issues":["LINE 通訊紀錄作為證據之可信度與證明力","京華城案之容積獎勵是否合法","公務員在審查過程中的對價性認定","都市計畫委員會審查程序之合法性"],"legal_issues_raw":["京華城案之容積獎勵是否合法","公務員在審查過程中的對價性認定","LINE 通訊紀錄作為證據之可信度與證明力","都市計畫委員會審查程序之合法性"],"participants":["合議庭","劉秀玲","審判長","廖","辯護律師（徐律師）","黃品聰律師"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師（徐律師）","審判長","合議庭（法官/審判長）","劉秀玲（證人/公務員）","廖檢察官（提及）","黃品聰律師（提及）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0037","session_date":"2025-12-24","session_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":10915,"summary":"本段逐字稿為京華城案之辯護陳述。辯方律師首先以紐約開發案類比，主張京華城開發能帶動南宋山及臺北市的城市再生與發展，請求法院對被告沈慶京判決無罪。隨後，律師針對檢察官引用公務員 LINE 通訊作為證據之論點提出反駁，強調應以會議錄音及公文簽辦流程等客觀資料作為認定案發當時情況之依據，並引用證人劉秀玲之對話紀錄，質疑檢方證人陳述之可靠性及當時政治環境之影響。","video_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","raw_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/raw/chunk_0037.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/cleaned/chunk_0037.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0037","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0037/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0037/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0037/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"}}