{"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_0029.txt","chunk_index":29,"documents_referenced":["刑法第五十七條","貪汙治罪條例第八條第二項","起訴書","都計法（都市計畫法）"],"end_seconds":8855,"keywords":["不作為犯","保證人地位","認罪","都委會","都計法","量刑斟酌"],"legal_issues":["不作為犯之構成要件（是否具備作為義務及保證人地位）","刑法第五十七條之量刑考量（認罪與責任審酌）","貪汙治罪條例第八條第二項之適用","都計法之法律適用與專業認定"],"legal_issues_raw":["不作為犯之構成要件（是否具備作為義務及保證人地位）","都計法之法律適用與專業認定","貪汙治罪條例第八條第二項之適用","刑法第五十七條之量刑考量（認罪與責任審酌）"],"participants":["彭振聲","檢察官","薛昭信","辯護律師（黃律師、杜律師、李月亮律師）"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師（黃律師、杜律師、李月亮律師）","彭振聲（被告）","檢察官（提及）","薛昭信委員（提及）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"NfrdKX5NBQc:chunk_0029","session_date":"2025-12-19","session_id":"NfrdKX5NBQc","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":8555,"summary":"辯護律師針對被告彭振聲之行為進行辯護，主張其行為應審酌主觀明知程度，並針對檢方指控之「不作為犯」提出法律爭議，質疑其是否具備保證人地位及作為義務。律師強調彭振聲在會議決議過程中已整合意見，且因缺乏都計法專業而導致違法，目前已主動認罪，請求法院依刑法第五十七條之量刑原則予以斟酌減輕。","video_id":"NfrdKX5NBQc","raw_text_key":"text/NfrdKX5NBQc/raw/chunk_0029.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/NfrdKX5NBQc/cleaned/chunk_0029.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NfrdKX5NBQc:chunk_0029","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NfrdKX5NBQc:chunk_0029/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NfrdKX5NBQc:chunk_0029/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/NfrdKX5NBQc:chunk_0029/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"}}