At the closing of the oral argument, the prosecutor is required to consider the public interest, the seriousness of the sentence and the personal characteristics of the accused. (Article 210 of Georgia`s Code of Criminal Procedure) In order to avoid misuse of powers, the legislation provides for the written agreement of the monitoring procedure as a necessary condition for the conclusion of an appeal contract and the modification of its provisions. (Article 210 of Georgia`s Code of Criminal Procedure) However, the Tribunal may object to the terms of the proposed fundamental agreement (even if it has already been agreed between the defendant, the victim and the prosecutor) and propose amendments (not specifically, but generally). If the accused accepts these proposals and changes his penalty rate, the court approves him and delivers the verdict in accordance with oral argument. Despite the agreement, all parties to the trial: prosecutor, accused and victim as an auxiliary prosecutor (in Poland, the victim can declare that he wants to act as an “assistant prosecutor” and therefore similar rights to the prosecutor) – have the right to appeal. [Citation required] The Plea (Georgian: საპროცესო შეთანხმება, literally “Plea Agreement”) negotiations were introduced in Georgia in 2004. The content of Georgian arguments is similar in the United States and other common law jurisdictions.  If the court finds that the evidence presented is not sufficient to support the indictment or that a request for a decision is made without substantial consideration of a case in violation of the requirements of Georgia`s Code of Criminal Procedure, it refers the matter to the Crown. The court before the case is returned to the Crown offers the parties to amend the terms of the agreement.
If the amended conditions do not comply with the court, then he will return the matter to the prosecutor`s office. (Article 213 of Georgia`s Code of Criminal Procedure). The Japanese system, officially known as the “system of consultation and mutual agreement” (協議-制度, kyogi-goi seido), advocates for the prosecution of organized crime, violations of competition law and economic crimes such as securities law violations. The prosecutor, the accused and the defence counsel each sign a written agreement that must be immediately admitted into evidence in a public court.  10. The United States and Mitsubishi agree that the fine, since the fine exceeds the legal maximum penalty of $10 million under the Sherman Act, applies to alternative sanctions in 18 United States. That must be the case. In order to avoid the uncertainty and cost of a court judgment and legal costs and to enable the Court to respond directly to the conviction, the United States and Mitsubishi write that the loss for the victims and/or the gain for Mitsubishi and others to support a fine of $134 million is sufficient. The United States and Mitsubishi agree that, without the prior provision, a hearing at 18 U.S.C 3571 would be necessary to determine the loss for the victims of the infringement or the benefit of Mitsubishi and others, because there is currently not enough evidence in the recording that can make a determination of loss or profit.