1. Differences in cognitive factors

There are similarities in cognitive factors between indirect intention and credulous negligence, that is, "everyone is aware of the possibility of the result;" There are also negative factors in the behavior results. "However, in terms of cognitive factors, there are some differences between them. First of all, there are some differences in their understanding. Indirect intentional actors "know" that harmful results will occur, while credulous actors only "foresee" harmful results. It can be seen that the indirect intentional actor has a deeper understanding of the relationship between cause and effect, that is, causality. In addition, judging from the difficulty of judgment, the judgment of causality adds many objective elements, which makes it easier to judge. Credulity and negligence are different. Due to the lack of a comprehensive grasp of objective factors, the judgment of causality is vague, which leads to the need to judge by subjective factors. Secondly, there are some differences in their understanding of the nature of causality. Causality in indirect intention is inevitable, and behavior will inevitably lead to harmful results. However, the causal relationship in trust fault is accidental, and the behavior may not necessarily lead to harmful results. Thirdly, there are differences in the scope of understanding between the two. The actor who believes in negligence has the initiative in cognition, and not only recognizes the possibility of harmful consequences, but also recognizes the measures to prevent harmful consequences. However, the actor in indirect intention disdains the measures to prevent the occurrence of harmful results, and only admits the possibility of harmful results. Finally, there are differences on whether there is misunderstanding between them. Generally speaking, the actor in indirect intention will not make mistakes in cognition, while the actor in trusting negligence will make mistakes in cognition.

2. Differences in will factors

Whether it is indirect intention or credulity, the actor does not directly pursue the harmful result, that is, he does not want the result to happen, and then the actor in both cases controls the specific purpose pointed by his behavior. However, there are still some differences in the will factor between the two. From the degree of protection of legal interests, it indirectly and intentionally reflects the direct contempt for legal interests. The "laissez-faire" in indirect intention is not indifference to the harmful results, but a kind of recklessness. "Whether the result happens or not does not violate the intention of the actor, because the actor has neither the mentality to prevent the result from happening nor the active attempt to pursue the result." It can be seen that the laissez-faire psychology in indirect intention is precisely the true portrayal of the actor's potential hope psychology. Different from indirect intention, credulous negligence reflects the negative protection of legal interests. Subjectively, the actor does not want or even exclude the occurrence of harmful results, but also wants to avoid them. The actor who believes in negligence obviously has certain avoidance ability, for example, the actor has rich experience in avoiding harmful results or has excellent preventive quality. As for the final harmful result, it only reflects the actor's wrong prediction of avoidance ability, and the occurrence of harmful result obviously violates the actor's will, so when harmful result occurs, the actor often "regrets". Based on this, when the harmful result continues to expand, the perpetrator will actively take measures to remedy it.

3. Differences in emotional factors

There is a difference between indirect intention and credulous negligence in emotional factors. Specifically, the indirect intentional actor has gone through a changing process from never wanting the harmful result to letting it happen, and then letting it happen. In terms of emotional factors, the appearance of the actor's laissez-faire psychology is the expression of the emotion reaching the extreme. However, trust fault is different. Because the actor has a certain understanding of the generation and prevention of harmful results, he can judge the objective conditions and preventive measures. "In this judgment process, the actor is influenced by emotional factors and produces a psychological state of believing that the result will not happen." ;