{"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_0013.txt","chunk_index":13,"documents_referenced":["A137行動硬碟","起訴書","都市更新條例","都市更新獎勵辦法","都市計畫法第24條"],"end_seconds":4135,"keywords":["同一性","圖利罪","容積獎勵","數位證據","正當法律程序","證據保全","都市計畫"],"legal_issues":["《都市計畫法》第24條與《都市更新條例》之適用與容積獎勵之合法性","圖利罪之構成要件（是否明知違背法令）","數位證據的同一性與證據能力（證據保全程序、司法聯結）"],"legal_issues_raw":["數位證據的同一性與證據能力（證據保全程序、司法聯結）","圖利罪之構成要件（是否明知違背法令）","《都市計畫法》第24條與《都市更新條例》之適用與容積獎勵之合法性"],"participants":["檢察官","被告","辯護律師"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師","檢察官","被告"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0013","session_date":"2025-12-17","session_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":3835,"summary":"辯方律師針對本案提出兩大爭點：首先是證據能力問題，質疑扣押之行動硬碟（A137）缺乏適當的證據保全程序（如司法聯結），且存取時間異常，無法證明其同一性，應不具證據能力；其次是關於圖利罪的構成要件，針對檢方指稱之「違背法令」部分，辯方質疑檢方對《都市計畫法》第24條之解釋過於狹義，且在準備程序中對違法之具體定義存在變動。","video_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0","raw_text_key":"text/NDpqyQ8TlV0/raw/chunk_0013.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/NDpqyQ8TlV0/cleaned/chunk_0013.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0013","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0013/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0013/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0013/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"}}