there's three issues three questions that have to be answered in this issue which is why did the court consider the the fact or did the factor of quite a surprise and and then also  position well in any employee employer relationship there's going to be an inherent factor of trust and terry employee is inherently obliged implicitly and morally to not steal from their to be the perfection of that particular offense or bringing people committing it to justice so if let's say the facts here were that mr surveillance had been a security officer or a loss pr i think that here needs to be more or yes there needs to be some official miss that requirement and that that that prevention with the expenses on the credit card statement and so forth and then takes it to the owner to pay the bills doesn't he fit within the kid corey by virtue of the context of the well first of all i approve indicates that he himself was required to prevent other people from committing fast or that he was obliged to report others who did and the other factor here that this he points to is that there was on that he had a company credit card and there i had to hazard a guess there are thousands of people in in these in the country who have company credit cards but not every person who is issue company credit card is then obliged to prevent their coworkers from stealing money or to report their coworkers who had their expense reports of somebody else's business position  he was merely an employee and had no role for their duty to his employer other than just the usual you know trust that's placed in an employee of the there is no know i'm not sure how this visit everything factor even applies to the situation where this is the person taking the property or taking the money or taking whatever isn't is because most agree with the court's decision there so i think it is it's evident that the legislature agrees that the men who were in the just your employer or in your employee who committed an offense against  security guard so starting fire wasn't tied to his shot it off here but who are defensive position he would have been in a position to commit this crime he was able to you know make charges on the money through his personal account and so the state's position as well would be that those factors that we're looking at that's not exclusive either the trial judge clearly was trying to find a place for this to it and that it was a four or that it was a position of trust that he was a minister so was his wife this is what he was looking at when he wanted to be informed or was he looking at the company he seemed to think about the company he concentrated on its actions there he really didn't talk about the argue and make inferences however i believe the actual evidence have about his responsibilities within office worker along the lines of he would answer the phones when the great x were gone from the office or but obviously the bills to go before he was there they got paid after he was gone they got paid while he was on vacation and so he wasn't the only one responsible for the money is it is always a factor i don't know  but neither one prior and the need to deter justifies double the minimum sentence and who are you know considering this factor here