{"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_0027.txt","chunk_index":27,"documents_referenced":["102年監察院調查報告","李德權之便利貼紀錄","起訴書","送公展簽程","陳俊源與朱亞虎之對話訊息"],"end_seconds":8265,"keywords":["傳聞證據","卷證外流","容積獎勵","施壓","送公展"],"legal_issues":["傳聞證據之可採信度","卷證資料外流之爭議","是否存在施壓影響公務人員簽署公文之事實"],"legal_issues_raw":["傳聞證據之可採信度","是否存在施壓影響公務人員簽署公文之事實","卷證資料外流之爭議"],"participants":["吳順民","朱亞虎","李德權","楊智勝","辯護人","陳俊源"],"participants_raw":["辯護人","楊智勝 (證人)","吳順民 (被告/相關人)","朱亞虎 (證人)","陳俊源 (相關人)","李德權 (相關人)"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0027","session_date":"2025-12-18","session_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":7965,"summary":"辯方針對證人楊智勝關於「吳順民在市府樓下等候」之證詞提出質疑，認為該證詞屬於傳聞且缺乏證據支持。辯方指出，根據朱亞虎的證詞及陳俊源與朱亞虎的對話紀錄，並無證據顯示吳順民到訪市府。此外，辯方質疑卷內便利貼資料在證人出庭前外流至媒體之情況，並強調李德權簽署簽程是基於法律可行性，而非因受壓力或有人等候而被迫簽署。","video_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","raw_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/raw/chunk_0027.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/cleaned/chunk_0027.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0027","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0027/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0027/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0027/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"}}