{"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_0005.txt","chunk_index":5,"documents_referenced":["張志澄個人手機記事本","樓地板面積工作小組資料","法人代表改派書","董事任職同意書","金華成案審議參與人員簽到表","金華成歷次董事會會議紀錄","金華成與鼎月之買賣契約"],"end_seconds":1775,"keywords":["主觀犯意","事前明知","共同犯罪","容積率","掛名董事","金華成案"],"legal_issues":["張志澄是否具有主觀上的「事前明知」","張志澄是否實際參與金華成案之容積率爭取過程","張志澄與沈慶京等人是否具有共同犯罪之決議","手機記事本內容是否能作為認定主觀犯意的證據"],"legal_issues_raw":["張志澄是否具有主觀上的「事前明知」","張志澄與沈慶京等人是否具有共同犯罪之決議","手機記事本內容是否能作為認定主觀犯意的證據","張志澄是否實際參與金華成案之容積率爭取過程"],"participants":["合議庭","張志澄","朱亞虎","李人","檢察官","沈慶京","陳俊源"],"participants_raw":["檢察官","張志澄","沈慶京","陳俊源","朱亞虎","合議庭","李人"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0005","session_date":"2025-12-18","session_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":1475,"summary":"辯方針對檢察官指控張志澄在金華成案中具有「事前明知」及參與爭取容積率之主張進行反駁。辯方主張張志澄僅為掛名董事且任期短暫，在簽署買賣契約前已離職，且其任內會議紀錄均未涉及容積率事項。針對檢方提出的手機記事本證據，辯方認為該記錄時間在捐款之後，且缺乏具體對應之行動紀錄，且相關證人（如朱亞虎）對記事內容表示不知情，故主張張志澄並無主觀犯意且未參與相關爭取過程。","video_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","raw_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/raw/chunk_0005.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/cleaned/chunk_0005.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0005","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0005/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0005/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0005/cleaned","session":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/sessions/Q2uHOiwtENo","case":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/cases/113年度金訴字第51號"}}