{"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_0005.txt","chunk_index":5,"documents_referenced":["主管機關行政令 (關於參選人不動產出租之規定)","政治獻金法","木可公司與柯文哲之獨家授權契約 (111年10月1日)","民眾黨臉書貼文 (112年5月26日)"],"end_seconds":1775,"keywords":["市場行情","捐款換小物","授權費","掏空","政治獻金法","木可公司","肖像權","著作財產權"],"legal_issues":["授權契約之合法性與必要性","授權費用是否符合市場行情（是否構成掏空之爭議）","政治獻金法對於參選人請款之限制","肖像權與著作財產權之價值認定及是否可請款"],"legal_issues_raw":["肖像權與著作財產權之價值認定及是否可請款","政治獻金法對於參選人請款之限制","授權費用是否符合市場行情（是否構成掏空之爭議）","授權契約之合法性與必要性"],"participants":["李婉軒","柯文哲","檢察官","辯方律師","黃珊珊"],"participants_raw":["辯方律師","檢察官 (提及)","黃珊珊 (證人/提及)","李婉軒 (證人/提及)","柯文哲 (提及)"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0005","session_date":"2025-12-22","session_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":1475,"summary":"辯方針對檢察官主張之「肖像權免費」及「掏空公司」指控進行反駁。辯方主張肖像權與著作財產權具價值，且木可公司與競辦簽訂授權契約收取費用符合市場行情（不超過營業總額10%），並說明1500萬授權費之計算基礎與捐款換小物活動之運作邏輯。","video_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","raw_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/raw/chunk_0005.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/cleaned/chunk_0005.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0005","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0005/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0005/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0005/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"}}