{"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_0038.txt","chunk_index":38,"documents_referenced":["公務員私下對話紀錄 (手機對話紀錄)","會議錄音及議文","監察院調查報告","都市計畫法第二十四條"],"end_seconds":11510,"keywords":["互動詰問","容積獎勵","罪刑法定主義","補充論告","證據主義","都委會"],"legal_issues":["公務員私下對話紀錄是否可作為認定違背職務之法律證據","容積獎勵申請是否違反都市計畫法第二十四條","被告應曉薇是否對公務員構成不法壓力","都委會委員是否存在受賄或被圖利之情事"],"legal_issues_raw":["容積獎勵申請是否違反都市計畫法第二十四條","都委會委員是否存在受賄或被圖利之情事","公務員私下對話紀錄是否可作為認定違背職務之法律證據","被告應曉薇是否對公務員構成不法壓力"],"participants":["審判長","應曉薇","檢察官","證人(劉秀玲)","辯護律師(含吳律師)"],"participants_raw":["審判長","檢察官 (廖檢察官)","被告 (應曉薇)","辯護律師 (含吳律師)","證人 (劉秀玲)"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0038","session_date":"2025-12-24","session_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":11210,"summary":"本段逐字稿記錄了法院審理過程中，辯方針對容積獎勵合法性、都委會委員是否受賄以及被告應曉薇是否施壓公務員等議題進行辯論。辯方強調無證據顯示都委會委員收賄，並反駁檢方引用公務員私下對話紀錄作為違法證據的論點，主張應遵循證據主義與罪刑法定原則。","video_id":"HXqeVOdrDrs","raw_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/raw/chunk_0038.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/HXqeVOdrDrs/cleaned/chunk_0038.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0038","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0038/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0038/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/HXqeVOdrDrs:chunk_0038/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"}}