{"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_0026.txt","chunk_index":26,"documents_referenced":["102年刑意字第1號（提及）","102年刑意字第8號（及103年第4次刑事庭會議）","協議書","會議記錄","起訴書（第260頁）"],"end_seconds":7970,"keywords":["不法利益","共同正犯","圖利罪","容積獎勵","建築成本","類推適用"],"legal_issues":["102年刑意字第8號（及103年第4次刑事庭會議）之法律適用性與類推適用之爭議","圖利罪中「不法利益」之計算方式（是否應扣除成本、必要費用及合理利潤）","圖利罪中公務員與被圖利對象是否成立共同正犯"],"legal_issues_raw":["圖利罪中「不法利益」之計算方式（是否應扣除成本、必要費用及合理利潤）","102年刑意字第8號（及103年第4次刑事庭會議）之法律適用性與類推適用之爭議","圖利罪中公務員與被圖利對象是否成立共同正犯"],"participants":["丁","丙","彭振聲","檢察官","沈慶京","辯護人"],"participants_raw":["辯護人","檢察官","丙","丁","被告彭振聲","沈慶京"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"NfrdKX5NBQc:chunk_0026","session_date":"2025-12-19","session_id":"NfrdKX5NBQc","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":7670,"summary":"辯護人針對本案不法利益的計算方式及法律適用提出爭議。首先區分丙、丁對於工程款與契約利益的認知差異，並討論是否應扣除成本與合理利潤。其次，質疑檢察官援引之102年刑意字第8號（或103年第4次刑事庭會議）之適用性，認為本案（都委會容積獎勵）與該案例（政府採購法招標）之基礎事實不同，不應類推適用。最後，請求法院考量被告承認決策瑕疵之態度，並主張計算不法利益時應扣除建築、土地及管理成本，以及保證金之融資成本。","video_id":"NfrdKX5NBQc","raw_text_key":"text/NfrdKX5NBQc/raw/chunk_0026.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/NfrdKX5NBQc/cleaned/chunk_0026.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NfrdKX5NBQc:chunk_0026","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NfrdKX5NBQc:chunk_0026/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NfrdKX5NBQc:chunk_0026/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NfrdKX5NBQc:chunk_0026/cleaned","session":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/sessions/NfrdKX5NBQc","case":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/cases/113年度金訴字第51號"}}