{"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_0035.txt","chunk_index":35,"documents_referenced":["主要計畫","卷內資料 (關於民國79、80年之區域發展與容積保障)","起訴書"],"end_seconds":10625,"keywords":["京華城案","偵查程序","圖利","容積獎勵","收賄","柯文哲","沈慶京","臺北市政府"],"legal_issues":["偵查程序之正當性 (檢察官人數異常及偵查壓力)","圖利罪之成立與否","收賄與行賄之認定 (關於吳順民之款項性質)","行政程序正義 (臺北市政府刪除容積保障之合法性)"],"legal_issues_raw":["收賄與行賄之認定 (關於吳順民之款項性質)","圖利罪之成立與否","行政程序正義 (臺北市政府刪除容積保障之合法性)","偵查程序之正當性 (檢察官人數異常及偵查壓力)"],"participants":["檢察官","辯護律師"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師","檢察官 (被提及)"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"sO8SNz7mXis:chunk_0035","session_date":"2025-12-17","session_id":"sO8SNz7mXis","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":10325,"summary":"辯方律師針對京華城案提出強烈質疑，主張吳順民之款項已報稅且其顧問身分早於容積獎勵爭議之前，否認收賄與行賄。律師批評臺北市政府在處理容積保障（120,284.39）時程序不公且涉嫌強取，並指責檢方在偵查過程中採取異常手段，包括指派過多檢察官（達11人）以及過度依賴被告自白而非實質證據，質疑此案為針對柯文哲與沈慶京的政治追緝。","video_id":"sO8SNz7mXis","raw_text_key":"text/sO8SNz7mXis/raw/chunk_0035.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/sO8SNz7mXis/cleaned/chunk_0035.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/sO8SNz7mXis:chunk_0035","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/sO8SNz7mXis:chunk_0035/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/sO8SNz7mXis:chunk_0035/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/sO8SNz7mXis:chunk_0035/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"}}