{"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_0023.txt","chunk_index":23,"documents_referenced":[],"end_seconds":7085,"keywords":["侵佔罪","利益迴避衝突法","圖利罪","對價關係","所有權","收受賄賂罪","財產同一性"],"legal_issues":["侵佔罪之構成要件（所有權歸屬與持有狀態）","參選人身份與個人身份在法律權利義務上的區分","圖利罪之適用","收受賄賂罪之對價關係與因果關係之區分","收賄罪之主體認定（公務員與政黨之財產同一性）","收賄罪之隱匿要件"],"legal_issues_raw":["收受賄賂罪之對價關係與因果關係之區分","收賄罪之主體認定（公務員與政黨之財產同一性）","收賄罪之隱匿要件","圖利罪之適用","侵佔罪之構成要件（所有權歸屬與持有狀態）","參選人身份與個人身份在法律權利義務上的區分"],"participants":["講者（法律分析人士）"],"participants_raw":["講者（法律分析人士）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0023","session_date":"2025-12-22","session_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":6785,"summary":"講者針對本案分析收賄罪與侵佔罪的成立要件。首先論述收賄罪需具備對價關係而非僅有因果關係，且收錢主體（民眾黨）與公務員（柯文哲）在財產上不具同一性，且缺乏隱匿意圖，故不構成收賄，僅可能論以圖利罪。隨後討論侵佔罪，強調其前提必須是「持有他人之物」，並透過獨資商號的類比，探討參選人身份與個人身份在所有權認定上的區分。","video_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","raw_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/raw/chunk_0023.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/cleaned/chunk_0023.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0023","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0023/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0023/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0023/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"}}