The appellate court found that the trial court properly exercised its sentencing discretion, having considered the appellant's mitigation and first offender status, and ordered the sentences to run concurrently. The offences involved a series of dishonest acts resulting in significant financial loss to the complainant. The sentence imposed was neither harsh nor excessive, and a non-custodial sentence was not justified given the gravity and multiplicity of the offences. There was no procedural error or misdirection in sentencing, and thus, no basis for appellate interference with the sentence.