{"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_0011.txt","chunk_index":11,"documents_referenced":["《政治獻金法》第23條第1項第4款","地檢署新聞稿","監察院「陽光法律主題網」內政部函釋","調查局職務報告"],"end_seconds":3545,"keywords":["侵佔","剩餘款","政治獻金","木可公司","法律解釋","薪資支付"],"legal_issues":["《政治獻金法》第23條第1項第4款關於「參加公職人員選舉使用」之定義與適用範圍","政治獻金剩餘款用於支付競總員工薪資是否構成侵佔罪","行政機關（調查局、內政部）與司法機關（地檢署）對法律適用之見解分歧"],"legal_issues_raw":["政治獻金剩餘款用於支付競總員工薪資是否構成侵佔罪","《政治獻金法》第23條第1項第4款關於「參加公職人員選舉使用」之定義與適用範圍","行政機關（調查局、內政部）與司法機關（地檢署）對法律適用之見解分歧"],"participants":["內政部","地檢署","李文娟(出納)","李文宗","柯文哲","調查局","顧林非(員工)"],"participants_raw":["柯文哲","李文宗 (競總財務長)","李文娟 (出納)","顧林非 (員工)","調查局","地檢署","內政部"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"xV6hqj2Ybds:chunk_0011","session_date":"2025-12-23","session_id":"xV6hqj2Ybds","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":3245,"summary":"本段文字主要討論柯文哲政治獻金剩餘款用於支付競總員工（顧林非等7人）薪資是否構成侵佔罪。辯方主張該支出符合《政治獻金法》第23條第1項第4款之規定，且調查局之職務報告亦認定無違法。然而，地檢署採取狹義解釋，認為選舉結束後已無公職選舉目的，且款項流向木可公司與眾望基金會，故認定為侵佔。辯方則引用內政部函釋，主張除紅白帖外，相關費用應從寬認定，認為該支出合法。","video_id":"xV6hqj2Ybds","raw_text_key":"text/xV6hqj2Ybds/raw/chunk_0011.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/xV6hqj2Ybds/cleaned/chunk_0011.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/xV6hqj2Ybds:chunk_0011","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/xV6hqj2Ybds:chunk_0011/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/xV6hqj2Ybds:chunk_0011/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/xV6hqj2Ybds:chunk_0011/cleaned","session":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/sessions/xV6hqj2Ybds","case":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/cases/113年度金訴字第51號"}}