Despite the importance of peer assessment in interpreter education, little is known about how peer assessment is experienced by interpreting students. This case study aims to explore how undergraduate students feel about their scale-referenced, peer assessment activities in/for an interpreting examination. For this purpose, three Korean undergraduate students' self-reports of what they experienced in a scale-referenced summative peer assessment project were analysed in detail, using Giorgi's descriptive phenomenological method. The analysis revealed a general meaning structure consisting of the following six constituents: the students (1) worry about the proposed peer assessment scheme and their ability, (2) feel empowered and responsible, (3) realise that assessment results may be greatly divergent, (4) have difficulty applying criteria in practice and suffer from rating fatigue, (5) believe that peer assessment is reliable and helpful and (6) express regrets about feedback. This study provides a better empirical understanding of what peer assessment is like, particularly for teachers interested in scale-referenced, summative peer assessment.