{"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_0016.txt","chunk_index":16,"documents_referenced":["政風機構執行行政調查作業要點","民國93年國父紀念館特定專案區都市計畫","現行容積移轉買賣及總量管制規定專案研究調查報告","監察院糾正意見","監察院自動調查申請資料"],"end_seconds":5020,"keywords":["中山特區","基準容積","政治偵訪","政風處","監察院","行政調查","證據能力"],"legal_issues":["監察院自動調查之程序正當性及事實認定之正確性","行政機關（政風處）是否具有刑事偵查權及搜查權","非法取得之證據（如會議錄音、私人行程）之證據能力認定"],"legal_issues_raw":["行政機關（政風處）是否具有刑事偵查權及搜查權","非法取得之證據（如會議錄音、私人行程）之證據能力認定","監察院自動調查之程序正當性及事實認定之正確性"],"participants":["辯護人"],"participants_raw":["辯護人"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0016","session_date":"2025-12-16","session_id":"IB49wmaJWtw","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":4720,"summary":"辯護方針對本案偵辦過程提出質疑，重點在於臺北市政府政風處在立案前長期進行「政治偵訪」，非法收集柯文哲市長的私人行程、便利貼及會議錄音，主張政風處僅具行政調查權而非司法警察權，相關證據缺乏合法性且無證據能力。此外，辯方亦質疑監察院在啟動自動調查及提出糾正意見時，對都市計畫容積限制（中山特區與基準容積之區分）存在認知錯誤。","video_id":"IB49wmaJWtw","raw_text_key":"text/IB49wmaJWtw/raw/chunk_0016.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/IB49wmaJWtw/cleaned/chunk_0016.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0016","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0016/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0016/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/IB49wmaJWtw:chunk_0016/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"}}