[Case] Mr. Sun applied for a telephone card in a city branch of a communications company. Later, Mr. Sun continued to receive sales calls made by marketing staff in the name of company staff. Sun made a complaint to the company, and the company said that it would add Sun's mobile phone number to "marketing no-disturbance". Later, Mr. Sun continued to receive a sales call and appealed through a government platform. The government platform replied that "in the process of handling, the two parties failed to reach an agreement. It is suggested to apply to an arbitration institution for arbitration or file a lawsuit with the people's court in accordance with the relevant national laws and regulations on the matter of appeal". Sun Mousui filed a lawsuit to the people's court, requesting the company to stop selling and bear the liability for infringement. After hearing, the court held that the telecommunication service contract between Sun and the company was established and took effect according to law. The company shall provide Sun with the telecommunication services agreed in the contract during the service period. The evidence submitted by Sun can prove that the company has repeatedly made phone sales to Sun without authorization, which has invaded Sun's privacy and constituted an infringement of Sun's privacy. Therefore, the court ruled that the company should not make marketing calls to Sun without his consent, and compensate Sun for 782 yuan of transportation expenses and 3000 yuan of mental damage compensation. [Narration] The judge believed that the private life of natural persons was peaceful and undisturbed. The Civil Code has made special provisions on the right to privacy and personal information protection in the General Principles and the Personality Rights, enriching and improving the rules of privacy and personal information protection. In particular, the first paragraph of Article 1033 of the Civil Code strictly regulates the behavior of disturbing others' private life by telephone, text message, instant messaging, e-mail and other means, which is strongly reflected by the masses. The judge said that in this case, Mr. Sun used the communication number provided by the company and paid for it, so there was a telecommunication service contract relationship between them. The company continued to make telemarketing to Mr. Sun after Mr. Sun repeatedly stated that he would not accept the telemarketing business. His behavior exceeded the necessary limit, violated the principle of equality and voluntariness, and constituted an infringement of Mr. Sun's privacy. The verdict of this case not only protects the privacy of the parties, but also responds to the problems strongly reflected by the current public, showing a clear judicial attitude. (Xinhua News Agency)