{"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_0020.txt","chunk_index":20,"documents_referenced":["檢察官補充理由書","調查局移送報告（A82卷第9頁、第10頁）","辯論意旨狀"],"end_seconds":6200,"keywords":["收賄罪","政治獻金法","無罪辯論","租金掏空","胖卡","調查局報告"],"legal_issues":["政治獻金法之適用與法律解釋","租車費用是否構成掏空公司資金","被告李文宗是否構成收賄罪"],"legal_issues_raw":["租車費用是否構成掏空公司資金","政治獻金法之適用與法律解釋","被告李文宗是否構成收賄罪"],"participants":["法官","辯護律師"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師","法官"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0020","session_date":"2025-12-22","session_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":5900,"summary":"辯護律師針對檢察官指控的「胖卡」租金掏空爭議進行辯論，主張租車費用符合市場行情且經調查局認定無不法事證，並質疑主管機關限制買車的合理性。律師進一步說明車輛用途為選舉宣傳而非僅限銷售小物。最後，律師針對本案請求無罪判決，並開始就被告李文宗的收賄罪名進行概念性的辯護，質疑檢方舉證之重點。","video_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","raw_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/raw/chunk_0020.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/cleaned/chunk_0020.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0020","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0020/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0020/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0020/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"}}