A legal case, question. Ask a few questions about legal cases, and bother someone who understands to

It is safer to define it as indirect and intentional. According to the title, it can be seen that Wang has a direct and deliberate supervisor mentality.

Wang took 5-year-old Xiao Ming out privately, and Wang had a duty to Xiao Ming to ensure safety. After being separated in the mountains, Wang neither called the police nor informed Xiao Ming's parents, and went home alone. Since Wang went hunting in the mountains, he knew that there were wild beasts in the mountains, and as a 5-year-old child, it was entirely possible to encounter danger, but he did not do any remedy and let it be.

It can be found to be "knowing that one's actions will have a result that is harmful to society, and allowing such a result to occur." ”

Criminal negligence refers to the psychological attitude that the perpetrator should have foreseen that his or her conduct might have consequences harmful to society, and because of negligence, he did not foresee it, or he had foreseen it and believed that it could have been avoided, thus causing harmful results. The question stem did not explain that Wang realized that Xiao Ming might encounter an accident if he disappeared, or thought that Xiao Ming had gone down the mountain and returned home by himself, so it could not be determined that Wang was negligent and criminal.

B and D are even less important.

I don't know if the landlord is satisfied.

a Intentional homicide.

Without seeking the consent of the victim's guardian, he took the child to a dangerous place without permission.

Failure to report the incident and inform his parents after the incident was a deliberate concealment of the facts. As a result, the child died tragically in the mountains three days later. There is no chance of survival.

As for what you said about not having the subjective intent to kill, you are too subjective, and the motive for killing needs to be verified.

So a deliberate homicide. Relatively close to the consequences of the case!

Question addendum: I am more inclined to manslaughter, but I am not convinced by the answer to intentional homicide. It can not be seen from the text that the subjective intention is to take Xiao Ming's life, but it can only be concluded that he knows the danger and lets the result happen. Relatively close to manslaughter.

Since you know the danger, but let the result happen, isn't it intentional? Did I put you in a cage with a tiger and let the danger happen to you, intentionally or negligently? You have to know that a child who is completely incapable of doing things is in the mountains, just as you are in a tiger cage.

The child is a minor and has no ability to judge Wang is a person with capacity for civil conduct, and when he knew that he would be in danger of being attacked in the mountains, he led a child who had no ability to judge into the country, without the permission of his guardian, and after he was separated, he did not call the police or notify his guardian, so there was a subjective intent to kill someone, and his behavior was intentional homicide

Old case, intentional homicide.

With subjective intention, let a 5-year-old child in the mountains no longer care, this is to allow his life to be attacked, what you call "underestimated", between a 5-year-old child and a forest where he can hunt, is really too merciful to the suspect.

Addendum: You are still analyzing this and analyzing that case for such an old case, and the analysis is still wrong in the end? I also studied law.

Although I studied law, it was still a bit difficult to judge. In my current opinion, it was an accident, because he had neither subjective intent nor crime. He is only guilty of failing to fulfill his obligation to notify, and he should pay compensation, but he is not guilty.

Wang neither called the police nor informed Xiao Ming's parents, and went home alone The separation was an excuse after the fact It should be deliberately thrown in the mountains Knowing that there are wild beasts in the mountains The consequences are obvious The characterization of intentional homicide is accurate.

1. In the criminal obligation of omission in the case, A has a prior obligation, while B does not have this antecedent obligation, only a moral obligation to help, and the moral obligation to help cannot be regarded as an obligation to commit a crime of omission**, which is where the boundary lies.

2. There is no harmful behavior. There was no causal relationship between Wu's conduct and his brother's death, because Wu's purchase of a plane ticket and inviting his brother to take a plane were not criminal acts of harm.

3. It is not an emergency avoidance. Emergency hedging is the protection of larger legal interests through the damage of lesser legal interests. Li and Zhang Mei's right to life does not have the problem of the size of the legal interest, and they cannot compare the value, and sacrifice the lives of others to save their own lives, and their behavior is excessive, and they should be held responsible in accordance with the law.

1. According to the provisions of the Privileges Law, Zhang obtained the property in good faith, and after the transfer registration was completed, Zhang had already obtained the ownership of the house, and Zhang had no obligation to return it.

2. The construction company only invited the cement plants A, B and C to make an offer, not an offer, so it did not need to bear the liability for breach of contract to companies B and C.

3. B shall be liable for compensation. Because B negotiated in bad faith under the pretext of purchase, he should bear the liability for negligence in contracting and compensate for losses.