{"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_0023.txt","chunk_index":23,"documents_referenced":["109年9月6日協調會會議紀錄","劉秀玲之偵查筆錄","吳順民與蔡立瑞之LINE對話紀錄","檢方論告書"],"end_seconds":7085,"keywords":["公務員","施壓","論告","證人筆錄","證明力","都委會"],"legal_issues":["是否構成對公務員之施壓","證人證詞之可信度與矛盾之釐清","證據之證明力（LINE對話紀錄、偵查筆錄、會議紀錄）"],"legal_issues_raw":["是否構成對公務員之施壓","證人證詞之可信度與矛盾之釐清","證據之證明力（LINE對話紀錄、偵查筆錄、會議紀錄）"],"participants":["公訴官/檢方","劉秀玲","吳順民","英曉薇","蔡立瑞","辯護律師","邵琇珮"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師","吳順民","劉秀玲","蔡立瑞","邵琇珮","英曉薇議員","公訴官/檢方"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0023","session_date":"2025-12-18","session_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":6785,"summary":"辯方針對檢方指控吳順民施壓公務員之主張進行反駁。重點在於：第一，劉秀玲之筆錄內容已於審理中釐清，並非吳順民指定排會日期，而是英曉薇議員之要求；第二，吳順民與蔡立瑞之LINE對話僅為詢問進度，不構成施壓；第三，指稱邵琇珮關於吳順民代行職權之證詞與事實不符，且其先前已於庭上承認誤解，但檢方仍於論告中引用。","video_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","raw_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/raw/chunk_0023.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/cleaned/chunk_0023.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0023","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0023/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0023/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0023/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"}}