{"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_0019.txt","chunk_index":19,"documents_referenced":["113年8月14日監聽譯文","起訴書（第104頁、第197頁、第210頁、第281頁）"],"end_seconds":5905,"keywords":["內政部公告","口徑一致","專業顧問","時空穿越","監聽譯文","細部計畫","賄賂"],"legal_issues":["共犯之勾串認定（口徑一致之爭議）","專業意見與犯罪意圖之區分","監聽譯文之證據能力與認定（是否被曲解）","賄賂罪之認定（時間線矛盾，113年對話無法證明106年之意圖）"],"legal_issues_raw":["監聽譯文之證據能力與認定（是否被曲解）","賄賂罪之認定（時間線矛盾，113年對話無法證明106年之意圖）","共犯之勾串認定（口徑一致之爭議）","專業意見與犯罪意圖之區分"],"participants":["吳順民","審慶經","應曉薇","林欽榮","檢方"],"participants_raw":["吳順民","審慶經","林欽榮","應曉薇","檢方"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0019","session_date":"2025-12-18","session_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":5605,"summary":"辯方針對113年8月14日的監聽譯文提出抗辯，主張檢方將吳順民與審慶經關於「細部計畫是否需報內政部」的專業意見分歧，曲解為「統一口徑」或「勾串」的證據。辯方強調吳順民係獨立專業顧問，且該通電話發生於113年，不可能作為認定106年起收受賄賂的證據，指責起訴書內容邏輯矛盾且憑空想像。","video_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","raw_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/raw/chunk_0019.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/cleaned/chunk_0019.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0019","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0019/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0019/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0019/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"}}