{"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_0009.txt","chunk_index":9,"documents_referenced":["企劃書","柯文哲與李文娟之通訊訊息","邱富生筆錄"],"end_seconds":2955,"keywords":["剩餘款","幕僚義務","意思自治","投資","政治獻金","木可公司"],"legal_issues":["共犯參與程度（李文宗、李文娟是否知悉合意內容及具備主觀故意）","款項來源之合法性（是否可用於政治獻金剩餘款）","款項性質認定（投資 vs. 勞務對價/交易）","資金流向之法律意義（帳戶間移動是否構成特定犯罪行為）"],"legal_issues_raw":["款項性質認定（投資 vs. 勞務對價/交易）","款項來源之合法性（是否可用於政治獻金剩餘款）","共犯參與程度（李文宗、李文娟是否知悉合意內容及具備主觀故意）","資金流向之法律意義（帳戶間移動是否構成特定犯罪行為）"],"participants":["李文娟","李文宗","柯文哲","檢察官","辯護律師","邱富生"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師","柯文哲","邱富生","李文宗","李文娟","檢察官"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0009","session_date":"2025-12-22","session_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":2655,"summary":"辯方針對 1500 萬及 100 萬款項之性質進行辯護。針對 1500 萬部分，主張其為柯文哲控制帳戶間之移動，不符合意思自治之交易；針對邱富生之 100 萬款項，辯方主張該款項係針對政治宣傳企劃書之支付，而非投資，且強調李文宗與李文娟僅負責付款流程之行政告知（告知投資不可使用剩餘款），並不知曉柯文哲與邱富生之實際合意內容，故不應承擔相關責任。","video_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","raw_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/raw/chunk_0009.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/cleaned/chunk_0009.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0009","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0009/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0009/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0009/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"}}