Source: https://stg.justice.gov/atr/case-document/plea-agreement-chae-kyun-chung
Timestamp: 2019-03-25 03:18:23
Document Index: 351569734

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3742', '§ 2241', '§ 3742', '§ 1', '§ 3553', '§ 3553', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 3', '§ 3', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 5']

Plea Agreement: Chae Kyun Chung | ATR | Department of Justice
Plea Agreement: Chae Kyun Chung
U.S. v. D.S. Kim, et al.
Filed March 15, 2006
CHAE KYUN CHUNG,
Case No. CR 06-0126 PJH
The United States of America and Chae Kyun Chung ("Defendant") hereby enter into the following Plea Agreement pursuant to Rule 11(c)(1)(C) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure ("Fed. R. Crim. P."):
2. Defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the rights set out in Paragraph 1(b)-(h) above, including all jurisdictional defenses to the prosecution of this case, and agrees voluntarily to consent to the jurisdiction of the United States to prosecute this case against him in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Defendant also knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to file any appeal, any collateral attack, or any other writ or motion, including but not limited to an appeal under 18 U.S.C. § 3742 or a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 or 2255 that challenges the sentence imposed by the Court, if that sentence is consistent with or below the recommended sentence in Paragraph 8 of this Plea Agreement, regardless of how the sentence is determined by the Court. This agreement does not affect the rights or obligations of the United States as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b)-(c). Nothing in this paragraph, however, shall act as a bar to the Defendant perfecting any legal remedies he may otherwise have on appeal or collateral attack respecting claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. Further, pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 7(b), Defendant will waive Indictment and plead guilty at arraignment to a one-count Information to be filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The Information will charge that beginning on or about April 1, 1999, and continuing until on or about June 15, 2002, Hynix Semiconductor Inc. ("Hynix") and co-conspirators participated in a conspiracy in the United States and elsewhere to suppress and eliminate competition by fixing the price of dynamic random access memory ("DRAM")to be sold to certain original equipment manufacturers of personal computers and servers ("OEMs"), in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1. The Information will further charge that Defendant, an employee of Hynix, joined and participated in the charged conspiracy from on or about April 1, 2001, until on or about June 15, 2002.
4. Had this case gone to trial, the United States would have presented evidence to prove the following facts:
For purposes of this Plea Agreement, the "relevant period" is that period from on or about April 1, 2001, to on or about June 15, 2002. Hynix is an entity organized and existing under the laws of Korea, with its principal place of business in Korea. During the relevant period, Defendant was employed by Hynix as the Director, Global Strategic Account Sales for Memory Products.
In the course of his employment during the relevant period, Defendant was engaged in the sale of DRAM in the United States. Among other responsibilities, Defendant recommended to his superiors and other employees at Hynix the prices for the sale of DRAM to be sold to certain OEMs in the United States.
During the relevant period, Defendant participated in a pre-existing conspiracy, as described below, in the United States and elsewhere among certain DRAM producers and their officers and employees, the primary purpose of which was to raise the price of DRAM sold to certain OEMs. The conspiracy directly affected these OEMs in the United States: Dell Inc., Hewlett-Packard Company, Compaq Computer Corporation, International Business Machines Corporation, Apple Computer Inc., and Gateway, Inc. Defendant participated in the conspiracy by engaging in communications with representatives of other DRAM producers and sellers, during which information on pricing was exchanged between competitors with the effect of influencing the price of DRAM sold to certain OEMs. Also during these communications understandings were reached, the effect of which was to stabilize and raise the price of DRAM sold to certain OEMs. Defendant also participated in the conspiracy by reporting pricing information to his superiors with the knowledge that minimum pricing floors for the sale of DRAM to certain OEMs in the United States would be set based on pricing information obtained by him and other Hynix employees in communications with competitors.
In addition, during the relevant period Defendant was aware of the existence of the conspiracy among the employees of Hynix, and he knowingly consented to the participation of one or more of his subordinate employees in that conspiracy.
5. Defendant understands that the statutory maximum penalty which may be imposed against him upon conviction for a violation of Section One of the Sherman Antitrust Act is:
6. In addition, Defendant understands that:
7. Defendant understands that the Sentencing Guidelines are advisory, not mandatory, but that the Court must consider the Guidelines, along with the other factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a), in determining and imposing sentence. Defendant understands that the Guidelines determinations will be made by the Court by a preponderance of the evidence standard. Defendant understands that although the Court is not ultimately bound to impose a sentence within the applicable Guidelines range, its sentence must be reasonable based upon consideration of all relevant sentencing factors set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a). Pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8, the United States agrees that self-incriminating information that Defendant provides to the United States pursuant to this Plea Agreement will not be used to increase the volume of affected commerce attributable to Defendant or in determining the Defendant's applicable Guidelines range, except to the extent provided in U.S.S.G. § 1B1.8(b). Defendant and the United States agree that the Court should consider the Guidelines in effect at the time of the offense, June 15, 2002, rather than at the time of sentencing, in accordance with U.S.S.G. § 1B1.11(b). The United States and Defendant agree that the Guidelines may be applied and, if applied, the applicable sentencing guidelines is U.S.S.G. § 2R1.1 with a base level of 10, a volume of commerce adjustment of plus 7 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 2R1.1(b)(2)(G); a role in the offense adjustment of plus 3 pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1, for a sub-total of 20; less a 3-level adjustment for acceptance of responsibility pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3E1.1(a) and (b), for a total offense level of 17. Further, the United States agrees to make a motion for downward departure pursuant to Paragraph 10 herein and U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, recommending that Defendant be sentenced to the recommended sentence agreed to below.
9. The United States and Defendant agree that, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5E1.1(b), Defendant should not be ordered to pay restitution in light of the civil cases filed against Hynix, Defendant's employer, including In re DRAM Antitrust Litigation, No. M-02-1486-PJH, MDL No. 1486, consolidated in the United States District Court, Northern District of California, which potentially provide for a recovery of a multiple of actual damages.
10. The United States and Defendant agree that the applicable Guidelines fine and incarceration ranges exceed the fine and term of imprisonment contained in the recommended sentence set out in Paragraph 8 above. Subject to the full and continuing cooperation of Defendant, as described in Paragraph 13 of this Plea Agreement, and prior to sentencing in this case, the United States agrees that it will make a motion, pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K1.1, for a downward departure from the Guidelines fine and incarceration ranges in this case. The motion for downward departure is based on cooperation that has already occurred and any additional cooperation that may occur prior to sentencing. Furthermore, the United States will request that this Court impose the fine and term of imprisonment contained in the recommended sentence set out in Paragraph 8 of this Plea Agreement because of Defendant's substantial assistance in the government's investigation and prosecutions of violations of federal criminal law in the DRAM industry.
12. The United States and Defendant understand that this Court retains complete discretion to accept or reject the recommended sentence provided for in Paragraph 8 of this Plea Agreement.
13. Defendant will cooperate fully and truthfully with the United States in the prosecution of this case, the current federal investigation of violations of federal antitrust and related criminal laws involving the manufacture or sale of DRAM, any other federal investigation resulting therefrom, and any litigation or other proceedings arising or resulting from any such investigation to which the United States is a party ("Federal Proceeding"). The ongoing, full, and truthful cooperation of Defendant shall include, but not be limited to:
producing in the United States and at other mutually agreed- upon locations all non-privileged documents, including claimed personal documents, and other non-privileged materials, wherever located, in the possession, custody, or control of Defendant, requested by attorneys and agents of the United States;
DATED: February 28, 2006 Respectfully submitted,
Chae Kyun Chung
300 Montgomery Street, Ste. 1100
Tel: (415) 477-3800
Download 215463.pdf
Download 215463.wpd