The state’s evidence at trial showed that Benton had stolen at least $2,300 from her employer. Benton was convicted of felony theft and falsification of business records. On October 25, 1996, Benton was sentenced to probation. She was also ordered to make restitution. The Superior Court aggregated the total theft from the Association by Benton at $5,994.65. The Superior Court also determined that Benton should pay restitution for the following amounts, which reflect a portion of the fees the Association had paid its accountants: $6,660 to ascertain the amount stolen by Benton through the “lapping” scheme; $1,336 in expenses for trial preparation; and $7,460 for restoring the Association’s financial records because of the damage done by Benton’s falsifications. In an amended sentencing order dated August 15, 1997, the Superior Court directed Benton to pay restitution in the total amount of $21,450.65. Prior to the Superior Court’s order quantifying Benton’s restitution, the Association had received the proceeds of a $10,000 bond under a policy of theft insurance, as a result of Benton’s theft. Therefore, the Superior Court divided the restitution. The first $11,450.65 was ordered to be paid to the Association and the remaining $10,000 to the insurer. The issue is whether an employee who has stolen funds should be liable to make restitution for the funds converted as well as for the expenses the employer incurred to straighten out its accounting records. Benton submits that the maximum amount of restitution she could be ordered to pay is limited to the evidence presented during her criminal trial. Therefore, Benton contends that the Superior Court erred by ordering her to pay an amount of restitution in excess of $2,300. What result? Benton v. State of Delaware, 711 A.2d 792 (Del. 1998)