{"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_0032.txt","chunk_index":32,"documents_referenced":["刑法第335條第1項","刑法第336條","政治獻金法","起訴書"],"end_seconds":9740,"keywords":["主觀意圖","侵佔罪","政治獻金","編戶人","行政法","設計顧問費"],"legal_issues":["是否構成刑法第335條及第336條之侵佔罪（重點在於是否持有他人之物）","行政法與刑法的適用界限（行政處分與刑事處罰之區分）","被告李文娟是否具有主觀故意或對款項來源之知情程度"],"legal_issues_raw":["是否構成刑法第335條及第336條之侵佔罪（重點在於是否持有他人之物）","行政法與刑法的適用界限（行政處分與刑事處罰之區分）","被告李文娟是否具有主觀故意或對款項來源之知情程度"],"participants":["吳敏軒","唐律師","孫丁君","李文娟","柯文哲","檢察官","辯護律師"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師","檢察官 (被提及)","柯文哲 (被告)","李文娟 (被告)","孫丁君 (相關人)","吳敏軒 (相關人)","唐律師 (被提及)"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0032","session_date":"2025-12-22","session_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":9440,"summary":"辯護律師針對柯文哲及李文娟之指控進行辯論。律師主張本案涉及之款項屬柯文哲所有，不構成侵佔罪（刑法第335、336條），且認為相關爭議應適用行政法而非刑法。針對被告李文娟部分，律師強調其僅依指示開立設計顧問費發票，與孫丁君並無直接聯繫，且無證據證明其或柯文哲對相關款項之真實目的知情。","video_id":"JaMUi1QUmbg","raw_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/raw/chunk_0032.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/JaMUi1QUmbg/cleaned/chunk_0032.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0032","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0032/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0032/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/JaMUi1QUmbg:chunk_0032/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"}}