{"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_0005.txt","chunk_index":5,"documents_referenced":["司法院釋字第 553 號","行政訴訟法第 19 條","行政訴訟法第 237 條之 18","貪汙治罪條例第 6 條"],"end_seconds":1775,"keywords":["判斷餘地","司法二元主義","司法自制","圖利罪","容積獎勵","專屬管轄","都市計畫"],"legal_issues":["司法二元主義下之管轄權分立（行政法院與普通法院）","司法自制原則與行政機關之判斷餘地（計畫性行政行為之審查標準）","圖利罪中「不法利益」之認定","都市計畫審議程序之合法性"],"legal_issues_raw":["都市計畫審議程序之合法性","司法二元主義下之管轄權分立（行政法院與普通法院）","圖利罪中「不法利益」之認定","司法自制原則與行政機關之判斷餘地（計畫性行政行為之審查標準）"],"participants":["辯方律師/"],"participants_raw":["辯方律師/發言人"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0005","session_date":"2025-12-18","session_id":"X9M3axM1LIU","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":1475,"summary":"本段文字為辯方針對都市計畫容積獎勵之合法性、司法管轄權及圖利罪構成要件之辯論。主張都委會審議程序正當，且都市計畫之效力應由高等行政法院依行政訴訟法專屬管轄審理，普通法院無權宣告無效。同時針對圖利罪之「不法利益」定義，主張該利益在都市計畫未被撤銷或宣告無效前屬合法，且司法機關對地方自治之計畫性行政行為應採取低密度的審查標準，尊重行政機關之判斷餘地。","video_id":"X9M3axM1LIU","raw_text_key":"text/X9M3axM1LIU/raw/chunk_0005.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/X9M3axM1LIU/cleaned/chunk_0005.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0005","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0005/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0005/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0005/cleaned","session":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/sessions/X9M3axM1LIU","case":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/cases/113年度金訴字第51號"}}