That's what I was afraid: an ill-posed, or trivially-posed, problem: as p < n AND p is one of the primes (the lesser one, btw) that divides n, then it is CLEAR that it must be more than merely p that divides n...! So if the question's going to be meaningful, it MUST be that it meant to ask that the primes are different...but then, as seen, the claim is false.
I think the question could be asked as follows: let n be a natural number which is not the power of a prime number and such that p is the minimal prime dividing it. Then, if p^3 > n then p is the product of two different primes.
But then the claimis very easy: as n is not the power of a prime it is divided by at least two primes. If n were divided by three primes p < q < r, then p^3 < p*q*r <= n, so that p^3 > n isn't true, contradiction ==> n is divided by two different primes and we're done.
Tonio