{"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_0023.txt","chunk_index":23,"documents_referenced":["原起訴一狀","筆錄"],"end_seconds":7085,"keywords":["圖利罪","文官體系","筆錄造假","行政判斷","誘導訊問","都市計畫"],"legal_issues":["圖利罪之構成要件（行政判斷失誤是否等同刑事犯罪）","法官之程序公正性與對被告之心理壓力","筆錄記載之真實性與誘導訊問問題","都市計畫變更之合法性與行政裁量權"],"legal_issues_raw":["都市計畫變更之合法性與行政裁量權","圖利罪之構成要件（行政判斷失誤是否等同刑事犯罪）","筆錄記載之真實性與誘導訊問問題","法官之程序公正性與對被告之心理壓力"],"participants":["吳子森律師","彭夫人","法官","邵琇珮"],"participants_raw":["法官","邵琇珮（證人/公務員）","吳子森律師","彭夫人（提及之相關人物）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0023","session_date":"2025-12-17","session_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":6785,"summary":"本段文字為辯方或相關人士對法院審理過程的質疑。主旨在於批評法官在訊問證人（邵琇珮）時，採取誘導性提問且強行導向特定結論，導致筆錄內容與證人原意不符。同時指責法官將行政判斷上的「思慮不周」強行認定為刑事上的「圖利罪」，並提到法官以求刑作為籌碼誘導被告認罪，認為此種做法摧毀文官體系，且導致彭夫人自殺之悲劇。最後強調證人並未改口，而是筆錄製作過程存在問題。","video_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0","raw_text_key":"text/NDpqyQ8TlV0/raw/chunk_0023.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/NDpqyQ8TlV0/cleaned/chunk_0023.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0023","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0023/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0023/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0023/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"}}