It is best to illustrate how to distinguish between indirect intent and overconfident negligence in

Indirect intentionality is what should be done and can be done, and the second is not done. The fault of overconfidence is to think that it will not happen after some objective judgment, and therefore do not do it.

The key to distinguishing between indirect intent and overconfident negligence is the difference in the attitude of the perpetrator towards the harmful outcome. Indirect intentional attitude towards the occurrence of harmful results is not an exclusion; The overconfident negligent actor has a negative or repulsive attitude towards the occurrence of harmful results. Another difference is that in terms of cognitive factors, indirect intent is "knowing", and overconfident negligence is "foreseeing", indicating that there is a certain difference in the degree of awareness of the possibility of the occurrence of harmful results.

Indirect intentional awareness of the likelihood of an outcome is slightly higher.

In terms of specific judgment, if it is proved that the perpetrator took positive measures to avoid the outcome, it should usually be the fault of overconfidence. Because judging the state of mind of the perpetrator should be based on the facts of the case, if the overconfident negligent actor wants to reject and avoid the occurrence of the result, if the actor takes measures to avoid the occurrence of the result, it is overconfident negligence rather than indirect intention. The perpetrator of indirect intent takes a laissez-faire attitude as to whether the outcome occurs, so there are no positive measures to prevent the outcome from occurring.

The form of sin is mainly composed of cognitive factors + volitional factors.

Cognitive factors may include: recognizing that harmful consequences of behavior will inevitably occur, recognizing that harmful consequences may occur, and recognizing that harmful outcomes will occur when they should be recognized but are not recognized.

Factors of volition may include: wishing for the outcome to happen, letting the outcome happen, believing that the outcome will not happen, and negligence.

Different combinations of cognitive and volitional factors can be obtained: direct intention, indirect intention, overconfident negligence, and negligent negligence.

Direct intent: recognizing that a harmful result of an act is inevitable or likely to occur, and hoping that such a result will occur.

Indirect intent: Recognizing that harmful consequences of an act may occur, and allowing such consequences to occur.

Overconfident negligence: recognizing that harmful consequences of behavior can occur, while credulity will not occur or can be avoided.

Negligent negligence: negligence without recognizing that a harmful outcome may occur.

Please turn to page xx of the penal code. There are detailed answers. Thank you, good people have a safe life. Bad guy xx

Direct intent, the perpetrator's mental attitude of knowing that his or her conduct will inevitably or likely cause consequences that harm society and hoping that harmful results will occur, as well as allowing the consequences to occur knowing that harmful results will inevitably occur. Indirect intent, the psychological attitude of the perpetrator who clearly knows that his or her conduct may have a result harmful to society, and allows such a result to occur Criminal negligence refers to the subjective psychological attitude that the actor should have foreseen that his or her conduct might have a result harmful to society, but did not foresee it because of negligence, or had foreseen it and was gullible enough to avoid it, resulting in a result that endangered society occurred. From the point of view of the content of the crime, criminal negligence has two characteristics:

1) In terms of the factor of consciousness, the actor should have foreseen that his or her behavior might have a result that would harm society, but did not foresee it due to negligence, or had foreseen it but could have avoided it with credulity. (2) In terms of volitional factors, the actor has a fundamentally negative attitude towards the occurrence of harmful results. According to the characteristics of the content of the crime, the criminal law theory divides criminal negligence into negligent negligence and overconfident negligence.

Negligent negligence refers to the subjective mental attitude that the actor should have foreseen that his or her conduct might have a harmful result for society, but because of negligence, he did not foresee it, resulting in a harmful result. Negligent negligence has two characteristics: (1) "should have been foreseen" and "not foreseen"; (2) It is fundamentally opposed to the occurrence of harmful results.

The first of these features, "failure to foresee", is the main demarcation between negligent negligence and other forms of sin. When determining the actor's cognitive standards, they shall first be determined on the basis of the actor's own level of intelligence, that is, on the basis of the actor's own subjective conditions, including the level of knowledge, intellectual status, work ability, professional level, and so forth. However, it is necessary to pay attention to the influence of the objective circumstances at the time of the act, so as to accurately determine whether the actor should have and could have recognized the occurrence of the harmful result at that time.

With the increasing progress of science and technology and the increasing complexity of social and economic life, people's cognitive obligations will become more and more extensive, and they will be more and more limited by objective conditions. Therefore, in judicial practice, only by paying attention to the comprehensive analysis of subjective conditions and objective conditions, and the specific analysis of specific problems, can we correctly understand the guilt. The negligence of overconfidence refers to the subjective mental attitude of the perpetrator who has foreseen that his or her behavior may have a result that is harmful to society, but is credulous enough to avoid it, so that such a result will occur.

The fault of overconfidence has two characteristics: (1) "foreseen" and "credulous can be avoided"; (2) The occurrence of harmful results is also fundamentally opposed.

Case: Defendant Wang, male, cadre of the security department of a factory. At about 8 p.m. on July 4, 1998, Wang saw several male students climbing out of the glass window of his house and looking in, thinking that they were watching his daughter take a bath.

Wang was even more angry, so he went back to the house and took out a pistol, trying to scare them, Wang came out and saw that the students had run away, so he fired a gun with the muzzle down and turned into the house. As a result, student Li was hit in the head by a bullet on the concrete floor, and died on the spot.

Analysis: This case is a manifest negligent negligence; First of all, it is determined that it is negligence, because Wang did not subjectively have the intention to kill the victim, but objectively caused the fact of the victim's death, so it can only be negligence; The overconfident negligence in the negligence is obviously not suitable for the characterization of this case, because the overconfident negligence is to indicate that he knows that his actions may cause criminal consequences and believes that he can avoid it, and Wang, as a cadre of the security section, usually carries a gun, should have a deep understanding of firearms, and has enough knowledge and time under a normal level of intelligence to analyze the danger of his shooting on the ground, but because he is negligent or overconfident, he did not analyze or did not analyze enough, so it is negligent negligence.

dNegligence of overconfidence.

Article 15 of China's Criminal Law stipulates that "one should foresee that one's actions may have a result that is harmful to society, and because of negligence and failure to foresee it, or having foreseen it and believing that it could be avoided, so that such a result will occur".

Based on this, criminal law theories distinguish criminal negligence into two forms: negligence and overconfidence. Negligent negligence refers to the mental attitude of the actor who should have foreseen that his or her act might have a result harmful to society, but because of negligence, he did not foresee it, so that such a result occurred.

Overconfidence negligence refers to the mental attitude of the perpetrator who foresees that his or her behavior may have a result that is harmful to society, but is credulous enough to avoid it, so that such a result occurs.

The relationship between the two is relatively easy to understand, and the views of the criminal law theory circles are also quite consistent, that is, scholars believe that both belong to the category of criminal negligence, and both do not want or reject the occurrence of results that harm society, but because the perpetrator is seriously irresponsible, he has violated his obligation to foresee and avoid the occurrence of harmful results or to avoid the occurrence of harmful results under the condition that he has the ability to foresee and avoid the occurrence of harmful results, that is, the ability to pay attention, thus constituting a criminal negligence mentality.

The key to the distinction between the two is that negligence did not foresee the occurrence of harmful results, while overconfident negligence foresaw the occurrence of harmful results.

Therefore, it is extremely important to scientifically judge whether the actor has foreseen the occurrence of harmful consequences in order to distinguish negligence from overconfident negligence. As for what is meant by "foreseen", it is generally believed in criminal law theory that it means that the perpetrator has foreseen that his or her conduct may have consequences that are harmful to society.

Indirect intentionality is to foresee that harmful results may or may not occur, and have a laissez-faire attitude towards the occurrence of results.

The fault of overconfidence refers to the mental attitude that one's actions may have consequences that are harmful to society, but are gullible enough to avoid such consequences.

Overconfident negligence is similar to indirect intent in that both recognize the possibility of a harmful outcome and neither expects the harmful outcome to occur, but there is a difference between the two. In essence, indirect intent reflects a positive contempt for social relations, and overconfident negligence reflects a passive and unprotective attitude towards social relations. This essential difference is reflected through their respective cognitive and volitional factors.

First, indirect intent is "knowingly" that the harmful result is likely to occur; The fault of overconfidence is the possibility of "foreseeing" the harmful outcome to occur. "Knowing" is more specific and comprehensive than "foreseeing". secondly, indirect intent is to carry out the act in order to achieve other criminal intent or non-criminal intent, without considering whether the occurrence of harmful results can be avoided; The negligence of overconfidence is carried out because it is necessary to avoid the occurrence of harmful results; Finally, indirect intent is to allow harm to occur, and the occurrence of the result is in accordance with the will of the actor; Overconfident negligence does not want or allow harmful consequences to occur, and the consequences occur against the will of the perpetrator.