{"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":["《政治獻金法》第二條第一項","《自由時報》相關報導"],"end_seconds":7085,"keywords":["KP秀","不相當對價","商業演出","政治獻金","義務演出","門票定價"],"legal_issues":["KP 秀門票收入是否構成《政治獻金法》定義之「不相當對價之寄付」","柯文哲義務演出是否涉及侵佔罪","門票定價是否具備商業合理性以排除政治獻金之認定"],"legal_issues_raw":["KP 秀門票收入是否構成《政治獻金法》定義之「不相當對價之寄付」","門票定價是否具備商業合理性以排除政治獻金之認定","柯文哲義務演出是否涉及侵佔罪"],"participants":["戴力林","柯文哲","檢察官","辯護律師（發言者）"],"participants_raw":["辯護律師（發言者）","檢察官（被提及）","戴力林（主辦單位負責人，被提及）","柯文哲（被提及）"],"phase":"言詞辯論","record_type":"segment","segment_id":"xV6hqj2Ybds:chunk_0023","session_date":"2025-12-23","session_id":"xV6hqj2Ybds","session_part":"下午","start_seconds":6785,"summary":"辯方針對 KP 秀門票定價之合理性進行說明，主張門票價格（8800元）係基於商業演出成本與有限座位數之計算，而非募款，且柯文哲為義務演出並未獲利，旨在反駁檢方關於不相當對價之政治獻金或侵佔之指控。文中並透過對比高額募款餐券（如5萬元餐券）之案例，解釋《政治獻金法》中「不相當對價」應接近於「無償」之法理定義。","video_id":"xV6hqj2Ybds","raw_text_key":"text/xV6hqj2Ybds/raw/chunk_0023.txt","cleaned_text_key":"text/xV6hqj2Ybds/cleaned/chunk_0023.txt","_links":{"self":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/xV6hqj2Ybds:chunk_0023","read":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/xV6hqj2Ybds:chunk_0023/read","raw":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/xV6hqj2Ybds:chunk_0023/raw","cleaned":"https://5pwpri46fd.execute-api.ap-east-2.amazonaws.com/segments/xV6hqj2Ybds:chunk_0023/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"}}