The division of crimes in terms of the length of time for committing the crime is one of the topics discussed among legal scholars and judges, and there have always been differences of opinion in determining the examples of this division, and the judges do not have a single procedure in this matter. In this regard, the Supreme Court of the country, in accordance with the unanimous opinion number  dated considered the crime of change of use as an instant crime, which has been seriously criticized by lawyers and the public opinion of the society, considering that this opinion causes the spread of the so-called crime and The impossibility of prosecuting the perpetrators is due to the lapse of three years from the date of the crime. This is despite the fact that by looking at the material element of the crime, it is observed that the use has been changed. This crime cannot happen in a single and short time. In other words, the material element of this offense, like the offense of aggressive possession, is linked over time and in the context of time. As previously, by the Supreme Court of the country and in the unanimous decision No. dated the offense of aggressive possession was considered a continuous crime, but the offense of change In terms of the material element, a user that is very similar to the crime of aggressive possession has been considered an instant crime during the unanimous decision. In this regard, the present study criticizes this unanimous decision with a descriptive-analytical method.