{"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_0025.txt","chunk_index":25,"documents_referenced":["民法（關於意思表示之撤銷）","眾望基金會章程（第7條第1項、第2項）","財團法人法第14條、第17條第2項"],"end_seconds":7675,"keywords":["侵佔","公益支出","政治獻金","木可公司","眾望基金會","背信罪","財團法人法","關係人"],"legal_issues":["基金會章程中關於業務支出比例之認定是否構成背信罪","捐款之法律性質與所有權歸屬（是否構成侵佔罪）","行政處分（政治獻金法）與民刑事所有權之區分","財團法人法第14條關於關係人定義之適用性"],"legal_issues_raw":["捐款之法律性質與所有權歸屬（是否構成侵佔罪）","行政處分（政治獻金法）與民刑事所有權之區分","財團法人法第14條關於關係人定義之適用性","基金會章程中關於業務支出比例之認定是否構成背信罪"],"participants":["唐律師","發言律師（或辯護方）"],"participants_raw":["發言律師（或辯護方）","唐律師（被提及）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0025","session_date":"2025-12-22","session_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":7375,"summary":"本段對話主要討論三個法律爭點：首先是關於捐款給木可公司是否構成侵佔，主張所有權始終在木可公司，不構成侵佔；其次區分行政責任（政治獻金違規罰款）與民刑事所有權歸屬為兩回事；最後針對眾望基金會李文宗是否涉背信罪進行分析，質疑檢察官引用財團法人法關於「關係人」之條文缺乏依據，並針對基金會章程中關於公益支出比例（60%）之認定與基金會實際業務性質（政策研究導向）提出辯論。","video_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","raw_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/raw/chunk_0025.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/cleaned/chunk_0025.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0025","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0025/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0025/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0025/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"}}