{"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_0022.txt","chunk_index":22,"documents_referenced":["大法官相關裁定（提及林醫師案）","最高法院相關判例"],"end_seconds":6790,"keywords":["因果關係","圖利罪","容積價值","對價關係","對待給付","行賄行情","賄賂罪"],"legal_issues":["對價關係之定義（對應民法之對待給付）","賄賂罪中「對價關係」與「因果關係」之區分","賄賂罪與圖利罪之法律構成要件差異"],"legal_issues_raw":["賄賂罪中「對價關係」與「因果關係」之區分","對價關係之定義（對應民法之對待給付）","賄賂罪與圖利罪之法律構成要件差異"],"participants":["辯護人"],"participants_raw":["辯護人"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0022","session_date":"2025-12-22","session_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":6490,"summary":"辯護人針對本案之對價關係提出法律論述，主張檢察官將「因果關係」與「對價關係」混淆。辯護人以市場行情（如政府採購案件之百分比）對比本案容積價值，認為涉案金額與利益不符，並引用最高法院見解與民法「對待給付」概念，說明賄賂罪之對價關係需為充要條件，而非單純的因果關係，進而區分賄賂罪與圖利罪之差異。","video_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","raw_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/raw/chunk_0022.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/cleaned/chunk_0022.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0022","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0022/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0022/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0022/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"}}