Sexual Harassment Case: Reversal of Court Cost Assessment Based on Conduct Deviation

In a case where criminal proceedings were terminated after the complainants withdrew their criminal complaint for sexual harassment, the lower authority had improperly charged the defendant with the official court costs based solely on the finding that the defendant's conduct significantly deviated from that of an average person, characterizing the conduct as "peeping" for which the defendant had apologized. The higher court overturned this cost assessment, reasoning that charging a defendant with costs despite acquittal or termination under the relevant statute requires specifying a clear violation of a written or unwritten norm for which the defendant is civilly blameworthy, and merely stating a deviation from average conduct without identifying the violated norm is insufficient to justify shifting the burden of official costs.