How have courts interpreted section 1203.1(1) of the California Criminal Code to determine that a defendant is entitled to restitution exceeding the damages for which he is held culpable?

5 In adopting the above standard, we are by no means engaging in what the dissent labels 'the magic of judicial legislation.' We are, instead, interpreting the broad language of section 1203.1, which does not clearly articulate those conditions of probation that are reasonable and those that are not. This is by no means a novel process. A similar task was undertaken by the appellate courts which initially determined that section 1203.1 permits restitution exceeding the losses for which a defendant has been held culpable (see, e.g., People v. Williams (1966) supra, 247 Cal.App.2d 394, 404, 55 Cal.Rptr. 550), even though a contrary construction of the statute was plausible.