1. Overconfident negligence leads to death and indirect intentional homicide.
Overconfident negligence leads to death, which is the result that the actor has foreseen that his behavior may lead to the death of others. However, with some factors that he thinks can avoid others' death, such as the skill, experience, knowledge and physical strength of the actor's own ability, or the preventive measures of others' behavior, as well as the favorable factors of objective conditions or natural forces, he thinks that others' death will not happen, so that others' death will eventually happen. Indirect intentional homicide refers to the behavior that the perpetrator knows that his behavior may lead to the death of others, but he takes a laissez-faire attitude towards the occurrence of this result and leads to the death of others. The similarities between overconfident negligence and indirect intentional homicide are: both have the result of the victim's death; Actors are aware that their actions may lead to the death of others, and they don't want this result to happen.
The obvious differences between the crime of negligent death and the crime of negligent death are as follows: First, the subjective estimation of the death result of others is different in cognitive factors. Although both of them foresaw that their actions might lead to the death of others, the actor in indirect intentional homicide did not make a wrong understanding and estimation of the possibility turning into reality, so when the possibility turned into reality, there was no mistake between the subjective understanding and the objective result of the actor, that is, the occurrence of the death result of others was consistent with the subjective and objective; However, in the death caused by overconfident negligence, the actor and subjectively think that due to their own background ability, technology, experience and some external conditions, the objective fact that the possibility can be turned into reality can be misunderstood, and in the case of other people's death, their subjectivity and objectivity are inconsistent.
Second, there are important differences in will factors. Although the actors in overconfident negligence and indirect intentional homicide do not want others to die, after in-depth investigation, their attitudes towards others' death are obviously different. Although the act of indirect intentional homicide does not want the death of others, it does not oppose the death of others, but allows it to happen. In the crime of death caused by overconfidence and negligence, the actor not only does not want the death result of others, but also does not let it happen, but hopes that this result will not happen and avoid it, that is, refuses and opposes the death result of others. In the case of foreseeing that his behavior may lead to the death of others, the actor still thinks that he can avoid the occurrence of harmful results, thus implementing this behavior.
2. The crime of negligent death is the same as the crime of intentional homicide of "negligent homicide"
The constitution of the crime of negligent death requires the actor to have a negligent psychological attitude towards the result of the victim's death caused by his behavior. In judicial practice, the behavior of an actor who mistakenly kills someone other than his "goal" (that is, the goal pursued by the actor) in intentional homicide should not be regarded as the crime of negligent death.
3. Qualitative analysis of death by omission.
Death caused by omission can be established not only as intentional homicide, but also as negligent death. The key to distinguish the two lies in whether the actor has a deliberate attitude towards the result of his inaction leading to the death of others, including direct intention and indirect intention. In judicial practice, we should pay special attention to such a situation, that is, if the actor has accidentally or negligently caused the danger of others' death before, and the actor can save others without saving them, which leads to others' death, the actor should not be characterized as negligent death, let alone an accident, but should be investigated for criminal responsibility for indirect intentional homicide. Secondly, from the objective aspect of crime, when the defendant's injury behavior leads to the death of the victim, the defendant has a specific obligation to prevent this harmful result. However, based on the above psychological factors, he not only failed to take active rescue measures, but even left without saying a word, resulting in the victim's death due to the delay in rescue time.
4. After the death caused by negligence, the actor mistakenly "killed" the corpse as a living person to silence it. He should not only be convicted of the crime of negligent death or intentional homicide, but should be convicted of the crime of negligent death and intentional homicide (the object cannot be attempted) and be punished for several crimes.