@Kronous, I agree it's small in the sense that it's one word. I can also understand it without a correction.
However, even though they sound the same, "come" and "cum" are very different words. It's easy to use "cum" in a "come" sentence where its meaning doesn't work, e.g. "when will you cum to work?" Ejaculation as a form of propulsion doesn't work, and it's an absurd image. But this translator used "cum" in a place where both "come" and "cum" work. Either (s)he doesn't know how to spell "come" (i.e. it's a mistake), or (s)he's pranking us for laughs.
It's a little funny as a joke, but it's really unacceptable as work product. Like if I referred to Dick Durbin as "Dick Turban" in something I published. It's a small mistake, sounds almost the same, but it's also unacceptable. It looks like I'm intentionally insulting him and his name, what I wrote is indecent, and it does not convey the meaning the author (his parents) intended. Leaving "cum" here is like leaving a jizz stain on the author's work, obscuring what (s)he meant. That's a disservice to the writer, the readers, and it disrespects all involved (translator included). I didn't point this out to say the translator needs to correct it out of obligation, (s)he should want to as it would fix an embarrassing mistake.
I don't mean to insult the translator. I appreciate his/her work. But fixing it would be the professional thing to do.