{"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_0011.txt","chunk_index":11,"documents_referenced":["公展公告","李德權之便利貼","都發局內簽","京華城陳情信"],"end_seconds":3545,"keywords":["京華城","公展","圖利","新章","行政程序","都委會","都市計畫法"],"legal_issues":["公展程序之必要性與合法性","公文簽署之權限與行政流程（新章與柯文哲章之區分）","是否涉及圖利之主觀意圖","都市計畫變更程序之合法性（都市計畫法第24條與都管條例第80條之2）"],"legal_issues_raw":["是否涉及圖利之主觀意圖","公文簽署之權限與行政流程（新章與柯文哲章之區分）","都市計畫變更程序之合法性（都市計畫法第24條與都管條例第80條之2）","公展程序之必要性與合法性"],"participants":["李德權","柯文哲","楊智勝","檢察官"],"participants_raw":["被告（柯文哲）","檢察官（提及）","李德權（提及）","楊智勝（提及）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0011","session_date":"2025-12-16","session_id":"IB49wmaJWtw","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":3245,"summary":"被告針對京華城案之公文簽署、列管爭議及公展程序進行辯護。其主張京華城並未實質列管，部分公文蓋章僅為秘書處之行政自動轉送（新章），而非其親自指示；關於送交都委會審議及公展之決定，係基於行政程序之完備及外科醫生之邏輯，認為應由專業委員會討論而非直接下達行政命令，否則才屬圖利。此外，針對副秘書長李德權之便利貼紀錄，被告主張其係基於合法性認定而處理，並非違法圖利。","video_id":"IB49wmaJWtw","raw_text_key":"text/IB49wmaJWtw/raw/chunk_0011.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/IB49wmaJWtw/cleaned/chunk_0011.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0011","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0011/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0011/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0011/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"}}