{"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_0018.txt","chunk_index":18,"documents_referenced":["偵訊筆錄","最高法院判決","檢方論告書/簡報"],"end_seconds":5610,"keywords":["公關","對價關係","行賄","證據不足","退休人士","顧問費"],"legal_issues":["收受賄賂罪之主觀意圖（行賄意思之認定）","檢方指控之證據力與邏輯矛盾（關於吳順民之職能與回報機制）","顧問費用是否構成賄賂之對價"],"legal_issues_raw":["收受賄賂罪之主觀意圖（行賄意思之認定）","顧問費用是否構成賄賂之對價","檢方指控之證據力與邏輯矛盾（關於吳順民之職能與回報機制）"],"participants":["吳順民","張家文","徐國城","應曉薇","朱亞虎","林欽榮","沈慶京","辯方律師（發言者）","陳俊源"],"participants_raw":["辯方律師（發言者）","朱亞虎（公關人員）","林欽榮（公關人員）","吳順民（被告/顧問）","沈慶京（衛京集團代表）","徐國城（委員）","應曉薇（議員）","沈慶京（相關人士）","陳俊源（公司人員）","張家文（公司人員）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0018","session_date":"2025-12-18","session_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":5310,"summary":"辯方針對檢方指控吳順民收受賄賂或作為行賄媒介之主張進行反駁。辯方主張朱亞虎、林欽榮等人才是負責公關與對外聯繫之專業人員，而吳順民作為退休人士，並不具備對市府的實質影響力。針對衛京集團支付給吳順民的顧問費，辯方強調其性質為單純的顧問報酬，並非行賄之對價，且檢方關於吳順民回報市府訊息的指控缺乏通訊紀錄等證據支持，指控內容存在矛盾且僅為臆測。","video_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","raw_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/raw/chunk_0018.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/cleaned/chunk_0018.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0018","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0018/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0018/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0018/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"}}