In In re I.M. (2005) 125 Cal.App.4th 1195, the juvenile court sustained a wardship petition alleging a minor had been an accessory after the fact (Pen. Code, 32) to a murder and that in committing that offense, he had acted with the specific intent to benefit, promote, further or assist the unlawful conduct of a criminal street gang ( 186.22, subd. ( b)(1)). The juvenile court placed the minor on probation and ordered as a condition of probation that the minor pay $ 15,184.43 in restitution to cover the cost of the victim's funeral. (I.M., supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 1199.) The appellate court concluded that although the minor's conduct did not cause the loss upon which the restitution order was based, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in ordering restitution for that loss. The court stated that because the minor had been found to have been promoting and assisting gang conduct, the restitution order served the rehabilitative purpose of making the minor aware of the consequences of his choice of participating in gang activities, including the emotional and financial impact of gang violence on the family members of the victims. (I.M., supra, 125 Cal.App.4th at p. 1210.)