{"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_0014.txt","chunk_index":14,"documents_referenced":["張家文訊問筆錄","檢證87 (Line工作群組對話紀錄)","顧問合約"],"end_seconds":4430,"keywords":["專業顧問","微京集團","變相賄賂","都市計畫","顧問勞務"],"legal_issues":["是否構成透過第三方（吳順民）之形式讓財團供養議員助理","顧問費用之性質認定（合法勞務報酬 vs. 變相賄賂）"],"legal_issues_raw":["顧問費用之性質認定（合法勞務報酬 vs. 變相賄賂）","是否構成透過第三方（吳順民）之形式讓財團供養議員助理"],"participants":["吳順民","張家文","應曉薇","朱亞虎","檢察官","沈慶京","辯護律師","陳俊妍"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師","吳順民 (被告/顧問)","應曉薇 (相關人員)","沈慶京 (相關人員)","朱亞虎 (證人)","陳俊妍 (證人)","張家文 (證人)","檢察官"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0014","session_date":"2025-12-18","session_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":4130,"summary":"辯方律師針對吳順民收受微京集團顧問費之爭議進行辯護，主張該筆費用為提供專業顧問勞務之合法報酬，而非檢方所指稱的「變相收受賄賂」或「財團養助理」。律師引用多位證人（如朱亞虎、陳俊妍、張家文）之證詞及Line群組紀錄，證明吳順民確實參與會議並提供都市計畫、土地開發等專業意見，具有實際工作內容，並非坐領乾薪。","video_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","raw_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/raw/chunk_0014.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/cleaned/chunk_0014.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0014","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0014/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0014/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0014/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"}}