{"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_0004.txt","chunk_index":4,"documents_referenced":["吳順民之名片","微經集團第一次發放獎金之簽呈（110年11月26日）","造星化工薪水紀錄","頂月公司與吳順民之顧問合約","頂月公司薪水紀錄"],"end_seconds":1480,"keywords":["京華城案","利益輸送","勞務報酬","微經集團","掛名","顧問合約"],"legal_issues":["吳順民在微經集團中之實際職能（掛名或實際顧問）","吳順民領取微經集團薪水是否為正當勞務報酬或不法匯款","領薪行為與京華城案之關聯性"],"legal_issues_raw":["吳順民領取微經集團薪水是否為正當勞務報酬或不法匯款","吳順民在微經集團中之實際職能（掛名或實際顧問）","領薪行為與京華城案之關聯性"],"participants":["吳順民","張家文","應曉薇","朱亞虎","陳俊源","陳玉坤","黃堅以"],"participants_raw":["吳順民","應曉薇","朱亞虎","張家文","陳俊源","黃堅以","陳玉坤"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0004","session_date":"2025-12-16","session_id":"IB49wmaJWtw","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":1180,"summary":"本段文字主要討論吳順民在擔任議員期間，領取微經集團旗下公司（造星化工、頂月公司）薪水的性質。檢方或法官質疑其領薪行為僅為掛名，缺乏實際勞務證明，且其對外自稱為應曉薇辦公室主任/助理，而非集團顧問。吳順民雖辯稱是正當勞務所得，但其簽署的顧問合約內容泛泛，且無具體參與開發案件的證據，其領薪時間與京華城案之關聯性成為爭議焦點。","video_id":"IB49wmaJWtw","raw_text_key":"text/IB49wmaJWtw/raw/chunk_0004.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/IB49wmaJWtw/cleaned/chunk_0004.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0004","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0004/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0004/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0004/cleaned","session":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/sessions/IB49wmaJWtw","case":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/cases/113年度金訴字第51號"}}