{"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_0021.txt","chunk_index":21,"documents_referenced":["都市計畫法第二十四條"],"end_seconds":6495,"keywords":["主觀意圖","京華城案","公務員保障","圖利罪","明知違法","認罪動機"],"legal_issues":["公務員執行職務之法律責任與制度保障","圖利罪之主觀構成要件（明知違背法令之直接故意）","認罪之動機是否等同於承認犯罪事實之認知"],"legal_issues_raw":["圖利罪之主觀構成要件（明知違背法令之直接故意）","認罪之動機是否等同於承認犯罪事實之認知","公務員執行職務之法律責任與制度保障"],"participants":["審判長","徐呂並(律師)","邵琇珮","鄭勝宇(律師)"],"participants_raw":["審判長","邵琇珮 (證人/被告)","鄭勝宇 (律師)","徐呂並 (律師)"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0021","session_date":"2025-12-17","session_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":6195,"summary":"本段文字記錄了辯護律師針對被告邵琇珮認罪動機的分析與質詢過程。律師主張邵琇珮認罪並非因為「明知違法」，而是基於對社會觀感與公平性的考量（思慮不周），強調其在庭上明確否認明知違背法令，因此不應構成圖利罪之主觀要件。律師進而對公務員在面對社會壓力與檢方見解時，缺乏制度保障而被迫認罪的現象提出質疑。","video_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0","raw_text_key":"text/NDpqyQ8TlV0/raw/chunk_0021.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/NDpqyQ8TlV0/cleaned/chunk_0021.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0021","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0021/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0021/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0021/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"}}