“Continuous crime” means several acts that the defendant has done to criminally infringe the same legal interest and happen at the same time and same place or in close areas within a short period of time. Since the independency of separate acts is very weak and these acts are socially undivided so as to be treated as one single crime. That is a continuous crime of one single crime in fact, which is different from a continuous crime of one court-decided single crime. The difference is that the latter results from several independent acts that injure the same legal interest, where those acts occur objectively at different times. In considering litigation economics, the law treats those acts as one single crime. (See Supreme Court Criminal Decision 2007 Tai Shang Zi No. 787.) Defendant in this case was not authorized to use the trademark, “僑福不動產” (Ciao Fu Bu Dong Chan), in the business of house leasing, real estate transaction and real estate broker. Additionally, Defendant granted to Lin Rong-Chang and Wang Yao-Peng a license to use such mark as franchise offices of Defendant. Because the periods of both uses overlapped, the independency between both acts was very weak. These two acts cannot be socially divided so as to be considered as a continuous act as well as one single crime.