{"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_0021.txt","chunk_index":21,"documents_referenced":["甲16卷135頁（調查局公文）","甲17卷430頁","甲28卷114頁"],"end_seconds":6495,"keywords":["程序正義","羈押禁見","證交法案","證據能力","變相施壓","逼供"],"legal_issues":["利用另案（證交法案）對被告及相關人員施壓之合法性","檢察官是否涉嫌脅迫取供","筆錄之證據能力（質疑逼供及內容與事實不符）","羈押禁見期間之詢問程序是否侵害被告權益"],"legal_issues_raw":["筆錄之證據能力（質疑逼供及內容與事實不符）","檢察官是否涉嫌脅迫取供","利用另案（證交法案）對被告及相關人員施壓之合法性","羈押禁見期間之詢問程序是否侵害被告權益"],"participants":["審判長","彭振聲","檢察官","沈慶京","辯護人","黃景茂"],"participants_raw":["辯護人","審判長","彭振聲","黃景茂","沈慶京","檢察官"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0021","session_date":"2025-12-18","session_id":"X9M3axM1LIU","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":6195,"summary":"辯護人針對本案之證據能力與程序正義提出質疑，主張彭振聲、黃景茂等人的筆錄存在爭議或被強迫，並指控檢察官對被告沈慶京採取脅迫取供之手段。此外，辯護人質疑檢方利用另案（證交法案）對被告公司進行大動作搜索與傳訊，實為變相施壓、報復及影響證人陳述，並對羈押期間之就醫詢問程序提出異議。","video_id":"X9M3axM1LIU","raw_text_key":"text/X9M3axM1LIU/raw/chunk_0021.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/X9M3axM1LIU/cleaned/chunk_0021.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0021","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0021/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0021/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0021/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"}}