{"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_0027.txt","chunk_index":27,"documents_referenced":["監察院報告","臺北市都市計畫施行自治條例第二十五條","黃景茂之證詞"],"end_seconds":8265,"keywords":["圖利","容積獎勵","白色恐怖","京華城案","行政程序","證據不足","都委會"],"legal_issues":["圖利罪之成立與否","檢察官起訴證據之充分性與合法性","京華城案容積獎勵之法律依據（臺北市都市計畫施行自治條例第二十五條）","行政決策程序（都發局審查、公開展覽、都委會決議）之合法性"],"legal_issues_raw":["檢察官起訴證據之充分性與合法性","京華城案容積獎勵之法律依據（臺北市都市計畫施行自治條例第二十五條）","行政決策程序（都發局審查、公開展覽、都委會決議）之合法性","圖利罪之成立與否"],"participants":["辯護人"],"participants_raw":["辯護人"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"sO8SNz7mXis:chunk_0027","session_date":"2025-12-17","session_id":"sO8SNz7mXis","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":7965,"summary":"辯護人針對檢察官的起訴內容提出強烈質疑，認為檢察官缺乏具體證據，僅憑拼湊碎片化資訊與陰謀論進行指控，其做法如同白色恐怖時期的審訊模式。針對京華城案的容積獎勵爭議，辯護人主張根據《臺北市都市計畫施行自治條例》第二十五條，透過細部計畫給予容積獎勵具有法律依據，且本案已完整經過都發局書面審查、公開展覽及都委會決議等法定程序，程序合法。辯護人批評檢察官將「討論過程中的反對意見」等同於「決議違法」的邏輯完全錯誤，且缺乏對公共行政決策流程的理解。","video_id":"sO8SNz7mXis","raw_text_key":"text/sO8SNz7mXis/raw/chunk_0027.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/sO8SNz7mXis/cleaned/chunk_0027.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/sO8SNz7mXis:chunk_0027","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/sO8SNz7mXis:chunk_0027/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/sO8SNz7mXis:chunk_0027/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/sO8SNz7mXis:chunk_0027/cleaned","session":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/sessions/sO8SNz7mXis","case":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/cases/113年度金訴字第51號"}}