{"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_0015.txt","chunk_index":15,"documents_referenced":["檢偵 87 號 LINE 訊息紀錄","長峰公司與市府之溝通紀錄","鼎月公司/造星化工之聘僱合約"],"end_seconds":4725,"keywords":["勞務對價","威京集團","犯意聯絡","賄賂","關說","顧問費"],"legal_issues":["被告是否利用退休公務員身分進行關說或施壓","被告是否與沈慶京、應曉薇有犯意聯絡或合意","被告領取顧問費是否具有對價關係（實際勞務提供）","顧問費是否構成賄賂款項之認定"],"legal_issues_raw":["顧問費是否構成賄賂款項之認定","被告是否與沈慶京、應曉薇有犯意聯絡或合意","被告領取顧問費是否具有對價關係（實際勞務提供）","被告是否利用退休公務員身分進行關說或施壓"],"participants":["吳順民","應曉薇","朱亞虎","檢察官","沈慶京","辯護律師"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師","吳順民 (被告)","沈慶京 (證人)","應曉薇 (證人/議員)","朱亞虎 (證人)","檢察官"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0015","session_date":"2025-12-18","session_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":4425,"summary":"辯護律師針對被告吳順民之顧問費性質進行辯護，主張其領取之顧問費係基於專業勞務提供（如審閱文件、提供意見），而非賄賂款項。律師透過引用長峰公司之溝通紀錄、集團內部人事簽約慣例，以及證人沈慶京與應曉薇之證詞，強調吳順民並未參與關說或與賄賂達成合意，且其顧問費金額符合社會行情，請求法院認定其無罪。","video_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","raw_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/raw/chunk_0015.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/cleaned/chunk_0015.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0015","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0015/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0015/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0015/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"}}