{"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_0017.txt","chunk_index":17,"documents_referenced":["A25 卷第 59 頁（113 年 2 月 10 日柯文哲發給林文中之訊息）","木可公司發票及往來明細"],"end_seconds":5315,"keywords":["侵佔","採風情資","政治獻金","木可公司","民調公司","背信","金主"],"legal_issues":["是否構成侵佔民眾黨政治獻金","檢方證據引用之正確性（是否張冠李戴）","款項性質是否為合法服務採購（木可公司提供之服務）","款項是否屬於「為他人持有之物」","背信罪之認定"],"legal_issues_raw":["是否構成侵佔民眾黨政治獻金","款項性質是否為合法服務採購（木可公司提供之服務）","款項是否屬於「為他人持有之物」","檢方證據引用之正確性（是否張冠李戴）","背信罪之認定"],"participants":["孫律師","林文中","柯文哲","檢察官","辯護律師","黃珊珊"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師","柯文哲","黃珊珊","孫律師","林文中","檢察官"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0017","session_date":"2025-12-22","session_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":5015,"summary":"辯方針對「採風情資 300 萬元」之款項性質進行辯護，主張該筆款項是由孫律師透過黃珊珊接洽，旨在私下支援柯文哲而非民眾黨，且款項支付予木可公司是用於採購服務（如行銷、公關、設計），並非非法持有或侵佔政治獻金。此外，辯方指控檢察官引用柯文哲與林文中之訊息內容時存在誤導，將關於民調公司營運成本的討論張冠李戴為木可公司作為金主付錢管道的證據。","video_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","raw_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/raw/chunk_0017.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/cleaned/chunk_0017.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0017","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0017/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0017/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0017/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"}}