{"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_0029.txt","chunk_index":29,"documents_referenced":["檢證85","檢證86","檢證87 (LINE群組簡報/PowerPoint)"],"end_seconds":8855,"keywords":["京華城","便當會","圖管條例80條之2","指定提案","行政效率","都市計畫法第24條"],"legal_issues":["是否構成對公務員之施壓或影響職務執行","證據（檢證87簡報）之認定與解讀是否被扭曲","都市計畫審議程序之合法性（都市計畫法第24條 vs. 圖管條例80條之2）"],"legal_issues_raw":["是否構成對公務員之施壓或影響職務執行","都市計畫審議程序之合法性（都市計畫法第24條 vs. 圖管條例80條之2）","證據（檢證87簡報）之認定與解讀是否被扭曲"],"participants":["劉秀玲","吳順民","柯文哲","檢察官","辯方律師"],"participants_raw":["辯方律師","吳順民 (被告/相關人)","柯文哲","劉秀玲 (證人)","檢察官"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0029","session_date":"2025-12-18","session_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":8555,"summary":"辯方針對檢方指控吳順民施壓公務員及干預都市計畫審議之主張進行反駁。辯方主張市長的「指定提案」僅為追求行政效率的領導風格，而非施壓；吳順民僅被動參與便當會且未發言；關於檢方提出的LINE簡報（檢證87），辯方強調該簡報旨在針對都市計畫法第24條與圖管條例80條之二的程序適當性提出專業意見，而非掩蓋對價關係或進行人身攻擊，主張其建議係基於行政一致性與效率之考量。","video_id":"Q2uHOiwtENo","raw_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/raw/chunk_0029.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/Q2uHOiwtENo/cleaned/chunk_0029.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0029","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0029/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0029/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/Q2uHOiwtENo:chunk_0029/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"}}