{"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_0005.txt","chunk_index":5,"documents_referenced":["本案細部計畫案","監察院糾正函","臺北市政府回函監察院之文件","都市計畫法第二十二條"],"end_seconds":1775,"keywords":["公益性","圖利罪","對價性","法律適用","行政行為","都市計畫法"],"legal_issues":["公務員執行職務之法律責任界限","圖利罪之適用範圍與構成要件（主觀明知違法之認定）","行政行為之合法性與對價性認定"],"legal_issues_raw":["圖利罪之適用範圍與構成要件（主觀明知違法之認定）","行政行為之合法性與對價性認定","公務員執行職務之法律責任界限"],"participants":["律師","柯文哲","檢察官","法官","證人林洲民","證人林欽榮"],"participants_raw":["法官","檢察官","律師","證人林欽榮","證人林洲民","柯文哲"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0005","session_date":"2025-12-17","session_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":1475,"summary":"法院針對本案圖利罪之適用進行論述，認為本案在行政程序上已獲相關部門及都委會認可，且臺北市政府曾回函監察院主張無違法或對價性不足之問題。法院強調圖利罪之適用應極為嚴格，必須確定被告明知違背法令，而非僅因事後有不同法律見解或行政爭議即構成犯罪，否則將導致公務員行政僵化。針對柯文哲市長之決定，法院認為其在當時之判斷難以認定為明知違法。","video_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0","raw_text_key":"text/NDpqyQ8TlV0/raw/chunk_0005.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/NDpqyQ8TlV0/cleaned/chunk_0005.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0005","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0005/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0005/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0005/cleaned","session":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/sessions/NDpqyQ8TlV0","case":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/cases/113年度金訴字第51號"}}