Source: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f243500/243519.htm
Timestamp: 2014-04-18 09:01:46
Document Index: 62976724

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 3742', '§ 1', '§ 1', '§ 3583', '§ 5', '§ 5', '§ 3663', '§ 3013', '§ 3612', '§ 5', '§ 3013', '§ 5', '§ 1503', '§ 240', '§ 1229']

Plea Agreement : U.S. v. Chang Suk Chung
Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group. NIALL E. LYNCH (State Bar No. 157959)	MICHAEL L. SCOTT (State Bar No. 165452)	HEATHER S. TEWKSBURY (State Bar No. 222202)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, v. CHANG SUK CHUNG,
| Case No. CR 09-0044 SI
The United States of America and Chang Suk Chung ("defendant") hereby enter into the
to be represented by an attorney; to be charged by Indictment; as a citizen and resident of the Republic of Korea, to decline to accept service of the Summons in this case, and to contest the jurisdiction of the United States to
prosecute this case against him in the United States District Court for the Northern
District of California; to plead not guilty to any criminal charge brought against him; to have a trial by jury, at which he would be presumed not guilty of the charge and the United States would have to prove every essential element of
rights or obligations of the United States as set forth in 18 U.S.C. § 3742(b) and (c)). Nothing in
beginning on or about September 21, 2001, and continuing until on or about June 1, 2006, LG
Philips LCD Co., Ltd. ("LG Philips") and coconspirators participated in a conspiracy to suppress
and eliminate competition by fixing the prices of thin-film transistor liquid crystal display panels
("TFT-LCD") sold in the United States and elsewhere, in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act,
15 U.S.C. § 1. The Information will further charge that the defendant, as an executive of LG
Philips, joined and participated in the charged conspiracy beginning on or about September 21,
2001 and continuing until on or about June 1, 2006.
4.	Had this case gone to trial, the United States would have presented evidence sufficient to prove the following facts: For purposes of this Plea Agreement, the "relevant period" is that period from on or about September 21, 2001, to on or about June 1, 2006. During
most of the relevant period, the defendant was Vice President of Monitor Sales of LG
Philips, an entity organized and existing under the laws of the Republic of Korea, and
with its principal place of business in Seoul, Korea. During the relevant period, LG
Philips was a producer of TFT-LCD and was engaged in the sale of TFT-LCD in the
United States and elsewhere. TFT-LCD are glass panels composed of an array of tiny
pixels that are electronically manipulated in order to display images. TFT-LCD are
manufactured in a broad range of sizes and specifications for use in televisions, notebook
computers, desktop monitors, mobile devices, and other applications. During the relevant period, the defendant participated in a conspiracy
attended meetings with representatives of other major TFT-LCD producing firms. During
such meetings and conversations, agreements were reached to fix the price of TFT-LCD
to be sold in the United States and elsewhere. The defendant was also aware of the
existence of the conspiracy among the employees and officers of LG Philips, and that
these employees and officers were engaged in conversations and attended meetings,
including group meetings commonly referred to by the participants as "crystal meetings," with representatives of other major TFT-LCD producing firms. The defendant was aware
TFT-LCD to be sold in the United States and elsewhere. The defendant was a manager or
supervisor in the conspiracy, which involved at least five participants. During the relevant period, TFT-LCD sold by one or more of the
foreign commerce. The business activities of LG Philips and co-conspirators in
connection with the production and sale of TFT-LCD that were the subjects of the
and commerce. Acts in furtherance of this conspiracy were carried out within the
sold by one or more of the conspirators to customers in this District. POSSIBLE MAXIMUM SENTENCE
a term of imprisonment for ten (10) years (15 U.S.C. § 1); a fine in an amount equal to the greatest of (1) $1 million, (2) twice the
§ 3583(b)(2) and (e)(3); and United States Sentencing Guidelines ("U.S.S.G.," "Sentencing Guidelines," or "Guidelines") § 5D1.2(a)(2)). 6.	In addition, the defendant understands that:
pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5E1.1 or 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(3) or 3583(d), the Court may order him to pay restitution to the victims of the offense; and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3013(a)(2)(A), the Court is required to order the defendant to pay a $100.00 special assessment upon conviction for the charged crime. SENTENCING GUIDELINES
Court by a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard. The defendant understands that although the
$25,000 payable in full before the ninetieth (90th) day after the date of judgment, with interest
accruing under 18 U.S.C. § 3612(f)(1)-(2); a period of imprisonment of seven months; no order
of restitution; and no period of supervised release ("the recommended sentence"). The defendant
agrees that he will not request that he be allowed to serve any part of his sentence in home
detention, intermittent confinement, or community confinement. The United States will not
object to the defendant's request that the Court make a recommendation to the Bureau of Prisons
that the Bureau of Prisons designate that the defendant be assigned to a Federal Minimum
Security Camp (and specifically to the Lompoc Prison Camp in Lompoc, California) to serve his
sentence and that the defendant be released following the imposition of sentence to allow him to
self-surrender to the assigned prison facility on a specified date. The parties agree that there
exists no aggravating or mitigating circumstance of a kind, or to a degree, not adequately taken
into consideration by the U.S. Sentencing Commission in formulating the Sentencing Guidelines
justifying a departure pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 5K2.0. The parties agree not to seek or support any
sentence other than the recommended sentence set forth in Paragraph 8. The parties further agree
that the recommended sentence set forth in this Plea Agreement is reasonable. The defendant
understands that the Court will order him to pay a $100 special assessment pursuant to 18 U.S.C.
§ 3013(a)(2)(A) in addition to any fine imposed.
9.	The United States and the 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 LG
Display Co., Ltd., defendant's current employer and formerly LG Philips, including In re TFT-LCD (Flat Panel) Antitrust Litigation, No. --07-1827 SI, 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 the defendant agree that the applicable Guidelines fine and
downward departure from the Guidelines fine and imprisonment range(s) in this case and will
11.	Subject to the ongoing, full, and truthful cooperation of the defendant described in Paragraph 13 of this Plea Agreement, and before sentencing in the case, the United
defendant's cooperation and his commitment to prospective cooperation with the United States'
charged offense, and all other relevant conduct.
Agreement. If the Court does not accept the recommended sentence, the United States
his sentence. If the Court does not accept the recommended sentence, the defendant will
Plea Agreement and the date the defendant withdrew his guilty plea or for a period of
United States. DEFENDANT'S COOPERATION
13.	The defendant will cooperate fully and truthfully with the United States in the prosecution of this case, the conduct of the current federal investigation of violations
of federal antitrust and related criminal laws involving the manufacture or sale of TFT-LCD in
the United States and elsewhere, 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
the defendant shall include, but not be limited to:
locations all non-privileged documents, including claimed personal documents, and other
requested by attorneys and agents of the United States; making himself available for interviews in the United States and at other
of attorneys and agents of the United States; responding fully and truthfully to all inquiries of the United States in connection with any Federal Proceeding, without falsely implicating any person
may have that is related to any Federal Proceeding; and when called upon to do so by the United States in connection with any
justice (18 U.S.C. § 1503, et seq.). GOVERNMENT'S AGREEMENT
14.	Subject to the full, truthful, and continuing cooperation of the defendant, as described in Paragraph 13 of this Plea Agreement, and upon the Court's acceptance
of the guilty plea called for by this Plea Agreement and the imposition of the recommended
sentence, the United States will not bring further criminal charges against the defendant for any
act or offense committed before the date of this Plea Agreement that was undertaken in
furtherance of an antitrust conspiracy involving the manufacture or sale of TFT-LCD or
undertaken in connection with any investigation of such a conspiracy ("Relevant Offense"). The
of the federal tax or securities laws, or to any crime of violence. 15.	The United States agrees that when the defendant travels to the United States for
Subject to the full and continuing cooperation of the defendant, as described in Paragraph 13 of this Plea Agreement, and upon the Court's acceptance of
United States. (Immigration and Nationality Act, § 240(e)(2), 8 U.S.C. § 1229a(e)(2)). The Antitrust Division of the United States Department of Justice has consulted with United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement ("ICE")
agreement on behalf of DHS. So that the defendant will be able to obtain any nonimmigrant visa that he may need to travel to the United States, DHS and the Visa Office, United
his guilty plea and conviction in this case. This agreement not to seek to remove the defendant will remain in effect so long as the defendant:
acts and has acted consistently with his cooperation obligations under this Plea Agreement; is not convicted of any felony under the laws of the United States or any state, other than the conviction resulting from the defendant's guilty
resulting from conduct constituting an offense subject to this Plea Agreement; and does not engage in any other conduct that would warrant his removal from the United States under the Immigration and Nationality Act. The defendant understands that should the Antitrust Division become aware that the
this agreement not to seek to remove the defendant. The defendant agrees to notify the Assistant Attorney General of the Antitrust Division should the defendant be convicted of any other felony under the
laws of the United States or of any state. Should the United States rescind this agreement not to seek to remove the defendant because of the defendant's violation of a condition of this Plea
and conviction in this case, but retains his right to notice of removal proceedings. 17.	The defendant understands that he may be subject to administrative action by federal or state agencies other than the United States Department of Justice, Antitrust
DATED: 12/29, 2008
BY:_______________/s/________________ Chang Suk Chung	Defendant BY:_______________/s/________________
Gerald A. Connell Attorney-at-Law	243 Weed Avenue Stamford, CT 06902-4413	Tel: (203) 323-6741	Fax: (203)	286-1774	Lee H. Simowitz
Washington, D.C. 20036	Tel: (202) 861-1608
Michael L. Scott, CA No. 165452 Heather S. Tewksbury, CA No. 222202
Alexandra J. Shepard, CA No. 205143
David J. Ward, CA No. 239504