{"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_0023.txt","chunk_index":23,"documents_referenced":["113年申收至2194號（相關搜索紀錄）","扣案編號AE37（硬碟及Excel工作簿）","永豐銀行帳戶提領紀錄"],"end_seconds":7085,"keywords":["京華城","扣案證據","政治獻金","程序正義","證據能力","金流"],"legal_issues":["是否存在舞弊或收賄行為","檢察官是否盡到對被告有利事實之調查義務","證據採取程序之合法性（扣案編號AE37）","金流證據之完整性與真實性"],"legal_issues_raw":["是否存在舞弊或收賄行為","金流證據之完整性與真實性","證據採取程序之合法性（扣案編號AE37）","檢察官是否盡到對被告有利事實之調查義務"],"participants":["吳採仙","廖","徐文鑫","柯文哲","沈慶京","辯護人"],"participants_raw":["辯護人","廖檢察官","柯文哲","沈慶京","吳採仙","徐文鑫"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0023","session_date":"2025-12-18","session_id":"X9M3axM1LIU","session_part":"上午","start_seconds":6785,"summary":"辯方針對檢方指控柯文哲收受沈慶京1500萬之說法提出反駁。辯方主張檢方僅憑扣案硬碟（AE37）之Excel工作簿認定，卻缺乏實際金流證據，且檢方描述之交付時間與地點模糊（某時地）。辯方進一步指出，相關款項應為商務往來，且在檢方指稱的交付期間內，雙方僅在公開的京華城動土典禮見過一次面，不可能進行金錢交易。此外，辯方質疑扣案證據（AE37）的取證程序存在問題。","video_id":"X9M3axM1LIU","raw_text_key":"text/X9M3axM1LIU/raw/chunk_0023.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/X9M3axM1LIU/cleaned/chunk_0023.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0023","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0023/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0023/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/X9M3axM1LIU:chunk_0023/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"}}