{"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_0017.txt","chunk_index":17,"documents_referenced":["最高法院實務見解","答辯狀","論告紀錄","起訴書"],"end_seconds":5315,"keywords":["京華城案","委任報酬","威京集團","對價關係","收賄","西部計畫"],"legal_issues":["委任報酬與賄賂之區分","收受賄賂之認定（對價關係之判斷）","犯罪時間軸之邏輯合理性"],"legal_issues_raw":["收受賄賂之認定（對價關係之判斷）","委任報酬與賄賂之區分","犯罪時間軸之邏輯合理性"],"participants":["公訴","吳順民","應曉薇","辯方律師"],"participants_raw":["辯方律師","吳順民","應曉薇（應議員）","公訴檢察官"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0017","session_date":"2025-12-18","session_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":5015,"summary":"辯方針對吳順民被指控收受賄賂一事進行辯護，主張其領取的每月5萬元費用為在威京集團工作的合法委任報酬，而非賄賂。辯方質疑檢方將收賄期間切割至110年10月（取得建造執照時）缺乏邏輯，且吳順民自106年2月至113年8月持續受僱，其薪資固定且需扣除二代健保，符合勞務對價之性質，並反駁檢方將「未領獎金」解讀為「以月薪形式賄賂」的論點。","video_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","raw_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/raw/chunk_0017.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/cleaned/chunk_0017.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0017","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0017/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0017/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0017/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"}}