1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Plaintiff A and C are the office building of the Fluent Association of D Religious Organizations (hereinafter “Fluent Association”), and Plaintiff B are the head of the Fluent Association.

The defendant is a member of the F church.

B. On July 20, 2012, Plaintiff B filed a complaint with the Defendant on July 20, 2012, stating that “The F church G was an organization specified in the list of the General Assembly of D Religious Organizations for several years as H’s permanent leaders.”

C. On August 1, 2012, G filed a complaint with the Defendant on August 1, 2012, stating that “The Plaintiffs shall attempt to divide the church and interfere with the church affairs.”

On August 31, 2012, the defendant decided to set up a trial court with respect to the plaintiffs and G and review them and decide by the temporary labor union.

E. On November 18, 2012, the Defendant trial court recognized the following facts: “Crimes of destroying the order of the church and obstructing the peace of the church and the growth of the church,” and “crimes of encouraging the division of church by organizing illegal non-emergency countermeasures committees,” and rendered a judgment of dismissal and suspension of consent to Plaintiff A and C, three years, and three years of suspension of suspension from office and suspension of consent to Plaintiff B (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

F. On November 18, 2012, the Defendant trial court rendered a judgment against G on the ground that “The Defendant had engaged in H activities at the place of the resolution of the 91th general assembly but complied with the said resolution, but is responsible for giving rise to the dispute and dispute within the church.”

G. On January 23, 2013, the FJ trial court rendered a judgment against the Plaintiffs on March 6, 2013, by recognizing the Plaintiffs’ “crimes that interfered with worship despite the instant judgment,” and “crimes that encourage the division of the school, and fit the public meeting,” and rendered a judgment against the Plaintiff B on March 13, 2013, and against the Plaintiff A on March 13, 2013.

H. The key contents of the FIE and the D Religious Organizations Constitution, Constitutional Ordinance, and Disciplinary Ordinance to which the Defendant belongs are as follows:

[Constitution] The Constitutional Court shall accept and deal with the constitutional significance, petitions and appeals submitted by each party council in accordance with its rules, and complaints and inquiries and entrusted judgments, and the case shall be tried.