{"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_0018.txt","chunk_index":18,"documents_referenced":["109年4月14日柯文哲批示公文","B12卷483頁（檢察官詢問彭振聲之筆錄）","甲23卷420頁（本院互動詰問紀錄）"],"end_seconds":5610,"keywords":["圖利","樓地板面積","經華城","誘導訊問","逼供","都委會"],"legal_issues":["偵查程序之合法性（是否存在逼供或誘導訊問之情事）","圖利之認定（是否將送交都委會研議視為圖利之開始）","筆錄內容之真實性與認可度"],"legal_issues_raw":["圖利之認定（是否將送交都委會研議視為圖利之開始）","偵查程序之合法性（是否存在逼供或誘導訊問之情事）","筆錄內容之真實性與認可度"],"participants":["審判長","彭振聲","檢察官","蘇大律師","辯方律師","邵琇珮","黃景茂"],"participants_raw":["辯方律師","審判長","檢察官","彭振聲","黃景茂","邵琇珮","蘇大律師"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0018","session_date":"2025-12-18","session_id":"X9M3axM1LIU","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":5310,"summary":"辯方針對經華城陳情樓地板面積爭議之處理程序進行說明，主張市政府將該議題送交都委會研議是為了確保公開透明並避免圖利質疑。同時，辯方強烈指控檢察官在偵查過程中採取扭曲公文解釋及設定誘導性假設命題之方式逼供，導致證人（如彭振聲）在筆錄中產生與其真實意願不符的回答。","video_id":"X9M3axM1LIU","raw_text_key":"text/X9M3axM1LIU/raw/chunk_0018.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/X9M3axM1LIU/cleaned/chunk_0018.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0018","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0018/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0018/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0018/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"}}