{"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_0025.txt","chunk_index":25,"documents_referenced":["104年10月15日都市發展局送件紀錄","105年10月13日都市發展局送件紀錄","105年6月15日都市發展局送件紀錄","檢察官製作之筆錄","第775次都審會議紀錄","第778次都審會議紀錄"],"end_seconds":7675,"keywords":["京華城案","圖利","筆錄截取","行政訴訟調解","都委會","陳情轉都審"],"legal_issues":["公務員在行政程序中提出疑慮後，經決議通過是否仍視為違法之證據","檢察官筆錄之完整性與公正性","行政訴訟調解制度與行政機關處理爭議之權限","陳情轉都審之程序是否構成圖利違法"],"legal_issues_raw":["陳情轉都審之程序是否構成圖利違法","公務員在行政程序中提出疑慮後，經決議通過是否仍視為違法之證據","檢察官筆錄之完整性與公正性","行政訴訟調解制度與行政機關處理爭議之權限"],"participants":["劉秀玲","徐律師","檢察官","辯方律師","邵琇珮","鄭律師"],"participants_raw":["辯方律師","邵琇珮","劉秀玲","檢察官","鄭律師","徐律師"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0025","session_date":"2025-12-17","session_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":7375,"summary":"辯方針對京華城案之程序合法性進行辯論，主張「陳情轉都審」為過去十年間的常態做法（共39件），並非本案特例，旨在反駁圖利指控。同時，辯方質疑檢察官在製作筆錄時採取片段截取，未能完整記錄劉秀玲等人員在經過討論後已消除疑慮之事實，並提及行政訴訟調解制度之精神，認為不應將正常的行政協調視為違法。","video_id":"NDpqyQ8TlV0","raw_text_key":"text/NDpqyQ8TlV0/raw/chunk_0025.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/NDpqyQ8TlV0/cleaned/chunk_0025.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0025","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0025/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0025/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NDpqyQ8TlV0:chunk_0025/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"}}