The judgment below

Examining the evidence duly adopted by the first instance court, the lower court’s determination that the instant facts charged were guilty on the grounds stated in its reasoning is justifiable, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the obstruction of general traffic, violation of the Act on the Collection and Use of Donations, violation of the Act on the Collection and Use of Donations, and the likelihood of lawful act.

Article 4(1) and Article 16(1)1 of the Act on the Collection and Use of Donations that impose an obligation to register on a person who intends to raise money and valuables in excess of a certain amount and impose restrictions on a certain case where the subject of registration is specified cannot be said to be an unconstitutional provision that violates the principle of clarity or infringes on the freedom of general action (see Constitutional Court Decision 2014HunBa66, 2015HunBa342, Nov. 24, 2016). Thus, the argument that the above provisions are unconstitutional cannot be accepted.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.