{"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_0027.txt","chunk_index":27,"documents_referenced":["《政治獻金法》第二條","李文堅之LINE對話紀錄","檢方起訴書"],"end_seconds":8265,"keywords":["不相當對價","定價方法","應援小物","政治獻金","木可公司","毛利率"],"legal_issues":["《政治獻金法》第二條關於「不相當對價之給付」的認定標準","商品定價過高是否構成政治獻金之法律爭議","關於「顯不相當」之認定應參考之實務見解（如重利罪、銀行法）"],"legal_issues_raw":["《政治獻金法》第二條關於「不相當對價之給付」的認定標準","商品定價過高是否構成政治獻金之法律爭議","關於「顯不相當」之認定應參考之實務見解（如重利罪、銀行法）"],"participants":["辯護律師"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0027","session_date":"2025-12-22","session_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":7965,"summary":"辯方針對《政治獻金法》中「不相當對價之給付」的定義進行法律論述，主張判定應參考同業、同類商品的市價區間，而非僅依據成本倍數定價。針對檢方指稱木可公司小物售價過高構成政治獻金之主張，辯方認為檢方未舉證證明該價格遠超市價，且成本倍數定價為一般商業行為，不能直接認定為不相當對價。","video_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","raw_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/raw/chunk_0027.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/cleaned/chunk_0027.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0027","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0027/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0027/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0027/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"}}