{"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_0024.txt","chunk_index":24,"documents_referenced":["B12卷（關於都發局受理陳情涉及都市計畫或圖管規定之處理流程）","臺北市政府所屬各機關處理人民陳情案件注意事項"],"end_seconds":7380,"keywords":["圖利罪","法定程序","行政裁量","違憲","都委會","都市更新","陳情案件"],"legal_issues":["圖利罪之成立要件","行政機關處理陳情案件之法定程序與裁量權","行政行為是否違憲（限制人民表達與傳達意見之自由）","行政規範（處理人民陳情案件注意事項）是否具有禁止行政機關採取其他作為之法律效力","都委會審議都市更新事項之職權範圍"],"legal_issues_raw":["圖利罪之成立要件","行政機關處理陳情案件之法定程序與裁量權","都委會審議都市更新事項之職權範圍","行政規範（處理人民陳情案件注意事項）是否具有禁止行政機關採取其他作為之法律效力","行政行為是否違憲（限制人民表達與傳達意見之自由）"],"participants":["彭振聲","林慶龍","柯文哲","辯方律師","黃吉茂"],"participants_raw":["辯方律師","彭振聲","黃吉茂","林慶龍","柯文哲"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0024","session_date":"2025-12-17","session_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":7080,"summary":"辯方針對被告彭振聲認罪之背景、都市更新審議之合法性，以及行政機關處理陳情案件之程序正義進行辯論。辯方主張彭振聲因希望交保而認罪，且都委會審議都市更新屬其職權。針對法官引用「處理人民陳情案件注意事項」認定圖利之邏輯，辯方認為該規定僅要求通知當事人依法定程序辦理，並未禁止行政機關採取其他作為，若解釋為禁止處理則涉違憲。此外，辯方引用卷證（B12卷）證明涉及都市計畫或人民權益之複雜案件，送交都委會研議為過去之標準做法，旨在證明該行為屬幕僚建議之常態行政流程，而非柯文哲個人之違法指示。","video_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0","raw_text_key":"text/NDpqyQ8TlV0/raw/chunk_0024.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/NDpqyQ8TlV0/cleaned/chunk_0024.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0024","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0024/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0024/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0024/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"}}