{"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_0016.txt","chunk_index":16,"documents_referenced":["京華城細部計畫公告"],"end_seconds":5020,"keywords":["交保","京華城","公平審判","司法信譽","容積率","社會公審","禁見"],"legal_issues":["交保標準之一致性與比例原則","檢察官舉證之充分性與合理性","社會公審與媒體輿論對司法公正之影響","被告長期禁見是否影響公平審判權"],"legal_issues_raw":["被告長期禁見是否影響公平審判權","交保標準之一致性與比例原則","檢察官舉證之充分性與合理性","社會公審與媒體輿論對司法公正之影響"],"participants":["審判長","法官","辯護律師"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師","審判長","法官"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0016","session_date":"2025-12-18","session_id":"X9M3axM1LIU","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":4720,"summary":"辯護律師針對被告長期被禁見導致無法有效對抗檢方舉證，質疑審理過程不公平，並與其他案件（如陳歐博案）之交保標準進行對比，認為本案處理方式損害司法信譽。同時，律師指出本案受社會輿論與媒體炒作影響，針對京華城容積率（560%至840%）之爭議存在嚴重誤解，主張被告在未審先判的社會公審壓力下受損，請求法官體察檢方舉證不足之事實，做出公正判決。","video_id":"X9M3axM1LIU","raw_text_key":"text/X9M3axM1LIU/raw/chunk_0016.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/X9M3axM1LIU/cleaned/chunk_0016.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0016","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0016/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0016/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0016/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"}}