{"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_0013.txt","chunk_index":13,"documents_referenced":["最高法院實務見解","論告","起訴書"],"end_seconds":4135,"keywords":["共同收賄","志工","權威影響","犯意聯絡","薪資支付","證據不足"],"legal_issues":["工作自由與兼職之合法性","權威影響之舉證責任","賄賂之對價關係 (薪資支付是否構成賄賂)","非公務員與公務員共同收受賄賂之成立要件 (犯意聯絡與行為分擔)"],"legal_issues_raw":["非公務員與公務員共同收受賄賂之成立要件 (犯意聯絡與行為分擔)","賄賂之對價關係 (薪資支付是否構成賄賂)","權威影響之舉證責任","工作自由與兼職之合法性"],"participants":["吳順民","應曉薇","柯文哲","檢察官","沈慶京","辯護律師"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師","吳順民 (被告/當事人)","應曉薇 (相關人員/議員)","沈慶京 (相關人員)","柯文哲 (提及之人物)","檢察官 (提及之對造)"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0013","session_date":"2025-12-18","session_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":3835,"summary":"辯護律師針對檢方對吳順民涉嫌與公務員共同收賄之指控進行辯論。律師主張檢方未能舉證柯文哲市長對公務員的具體權威影響，且缺乏沈慶京與應曉薇之間存在收賄合議的證據。律師強調吳順民為志工性質，其領取之顧問費並未流向應曉薇，認為檢方僅以碎片化的小故事拼湊，未能建構核心犯罪事實。","video_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","raw_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/raw/chunk_0013.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/cleaned/chunk_0013.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0013","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0013/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0013/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0013/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"}}