{"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_0002.txt","chunk_index":2,"documents_referenced":["101年度判字第718號判決","印元公司回覆 (113年10月29日)","政治獻金法第2條第1款","民法第406條 (贈與契約)","民法第761條第1項 (動產物權讓與)","臺灣高等法院104年上國3號判決","選委會回函 (A14卷第3頁、第5頁)"],"end_seconds":890,"keywords":["吳欣盈","所有權","政治獻金","柯文哲","物權交付","贈與契約"],"legal_issues":["政治獻金之所有權歸屬及其使用限制","政治獻金是否構成民法上之贈與契約","款項是否屬於吳欣盈共有之認定","法律判例之適用性（104年上國3號判決、101年判字718號判決）"],"legal_issues_raw":["政治獻金之所有權歸屬及其使用限制","政治獻金是否構成民法上之贈與契約","款項是否屬於吳欣盈共有之認定","法律判例之適用性（104年上國3號判決、101年判字718號判決）"],"participants":["檢察官","辯方律師"],"participants_raw":["辯方律師","檢察官 (被提及)"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0002","session_date":"2025-12-22","session_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":590,"summary":"辯方針對檢察官之主張進行反駁，重點在於：(1) 質疑檢察官關於政治獻金所有權與使用限制之邏輯；(2) 主張本案款項（含授權金、小物支出及代售款項）與吳欣盈無關，且捐款對象明確為柯文哲；(3) 指出檢察官引用之高院判決（104年上國3號）與本案事實不符，僅涉及損害認定而非所有權歸屬；(4) 區分本案與「和民德行善團」案之性質差異，強調政治獻金具有明確的物件性；(5) 引用民法贈與及物權讓與規定，以及101年度判字第718號判決，主張捐款行為應視為贈與契約之成立。","video_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","raw_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/raw/chunk_0002.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/cleaned/chunk_0002.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0002","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0002/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0002/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0002/cleaned","session":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/sessions/JaMUi1QUmbg","case":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/cases/113年度金訴字第51號"}}