{"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_0018.txt","chunk_index":18,"documents_referenced":["人民治理西部計畫（西部計畫書）","最高法院臺上字第一〇九號判決","最高法院臺上字第三二一四號判決","都市計畫法第二十四條","釋字第七四二號解釋"],"end_seconds":5610,"keywords":["圖利罪","容積獎勵","平等原則","構成要件","法規命令","行政救濟","都市計畫法"],"legal_issues":["圖利罪之構成要件是否包含違反平等原則","行政法院判決是否等同於法令","通盤檢討是否具備法規命令性質而可作為容積獎勵之依據","都市計畫之容積獎勵是否違反平等原則並進而構成圖利罪","都市計畫變更與信賴保護原則之關係"],"legal_issues_raw":["通盤檢討是否具備法規命令性質而可作為容積獎勵之依據","都市計畫之容積獎勵是否違反平等原則並進而構成圖利罪","行政法院判決是否等同於法令","圖利罪之構成要件是否包含違反平等原則","都市計畫變更與信賴保護原則之關係"],"participants":["合議庭","甲官","辯方（發言者）"],"participants_raw":["辯方（發言者）","甲官（被評論之法官/檢察官）","合議庭（被提及之對象）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0018","session_date":"2025-12-17","session_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":5310,"summary":"辯方針對甲官的指控進行反駁，主要爭議在於容積獎勵的法律依據、是否違反平等原則而構成圖利罪，以及對行政法院判決之解讀。辯方主張容積獎勵係基於法律授權之都市計畫結果，且平等原則不應直接等同於圖利罪的違法構成要件，批評甲官將法律見解與個人直覺混淆，並強調應以證據與法律構成要件而非正義感來判定本案。","video_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0","raw_text_key":"text/NDpqyQ8TlV0/raw/chunk_0018.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/NDpqyQ8TlV0/cleaned/chunk_0018.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0018","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0018/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0018/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0018/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"}}