Distinction Between Over-confidence-paradox And Indirect Intention

The full paper is divided into five parts.Part I the cause of action. Weiming Sun heavy casualties caused by drunk driving accident case.Part II describes the case. Chengdu, 30-year-old man Weiming Sun ignore national laws and regulations on vehicle driving license for driving without a license term, and drinking driving and normal driving the car had rear-end accident, then up 134-138 km per hour speed limit of 60 km in the urban roads to drive, and then crash into the moving vehicle, eventually leading to 4 deaths 1 injuries.Part III the focus of controversy and disagreement. The focus of controversy in this case the subjective state of mind of the identified Weiming Sun, according to subjective differences of opinion on the state of mind, on Weiming Sun qualitative case there are three different views: The first argument should be handled by the Crime; second is a dangerous approach should be the crime of endangering public safety to punish; third view is to be the fault of endangering public safety in a dangerous way to punish the crime.Part IV This section is divided into four small parts. The first part is the fault of over-confidence in the analysis of the theory and the author's opinion. The second part is the indirect nature of the interpretation and intent of the author's views. The third part is about the relationship and difference between the two. The fourth part is a combination of theories and views of the author, on the subjective psychological state of Weiming Sun, and negligence on this basis to the crime of endangering public safety hazard approach.Part V the case conclusion. Belong to the same negligence by the Crime and criminal negligence in a dangerous way compared against public security offenses, and the Subjective and Objective Unify according to the principle, I believe that the behavior should be based on Weiming Sun negligence endangering the public safety of dangerous convicted and punished.