{"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_0012.txt","chunk_index":12,"documents_referenced":["起訴書"],"end_seconds":3840,"keywords":["威京集團","志工","應曉薇","柯文哲","西邊計畫","迂迴賄賂","顧問合約"],"legal_issues":["職權行使與對價關係（是否利用職權影響市府公務員主導西邊計畫）","虛構委任關係之認定（顧問合約是否為掩飾賄賂之手段）","賄賂罪之認定（是否屬迂迴賄賂）"],"legal_issues_raw":["賄賂罪之認定（是否屬迂迴賄賂）","虛構委任關係之認定（顧問合約是否為掩飾賄賂之手段）","職權行使與對價關係（是否利用職權影響市府公務員主導西邊計畫）"],"participants":["吳順民","孫律師(孫小平)","審判長"],"participants_raw":["審判長","孫律師 (孫小平)","吳順民 (被告)"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0012","session_date":"2025-12-18","session_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":3540,"summary":"本段紀錄為被告吳順民之辯護律師孫小平的綜合辯論陳述。孫律師主張檢方起訴僅有「大膽假設」而缺乏「小心求證」，質疑起訴書將吳順民在威京集團領取的顧問費（106年至110年，共計約363萬元）認定為包裝後的賄賂款項，用以迂迴賄賂應曉薇議員。律師強調吳順民在應曉薇處僅為不領薪的志工，且否認其利用顧問合約執行請託關說或協助柯文哲市長影響市府公務員以主導「西邊計畫」之指控。","video_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","raw_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/raw/chunk_0012.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/cleaned/chunk_0012.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0012","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0012/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0012/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0012/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"}}